Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, requirements for original production, together with quotas for independent production and regional production, form an important part of the broadcasting landscape, as they help to maintain the variety and quality of UK public service television.
	The overall health of the programme supply market depends to a considerable extent on a vibrant, innovative, domestic production industry. But this is not the only reason why original production is important. It is also clear that UK viewers are discerning, and demand high quality television programmes.
	These requirements are not new. Licensed public broadcasters currently have licence conditions requiring their channel or service to include an agreed percentage of original productions in each calendar year. Broadcasters have consistently met their targets in previous years, and we see no reason why this should not continue.
	Similar licence conditions to comply with original productions quotas will continue, but this will in future be based on a statutory requirement under the 2003 Act. This instrument will define original productions under powers in the Communications Act 2003. However, it is Ofcom's role to set the actual quotas for original productions. Any financial impact will be as a result of the quotas set or agreed by the regulator.
	I am satisfied that this draft order is compatible with convention rights.
	Under Section 278(6) of the Communications Act 2003 and paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 12 to the Act, the Secretary of State may by order define the programmes that are to be original productions for the purposes of Section 278 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Act. Furthermore, under Section 278(7) of the Act and paragraph 8(7) of Schedule 12 to it, the Secretary of State may confer such discretions on Ofcom as she thinks fit.
	This order is made in exercise of those powers and has been laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 278(9) of the Communications Act 2003 and paragraph 8(9) of Schedule 12 to that Act.
	The original productions quota was introduced as a statutory obligation, along with other production quotas, to maintain the high quality of television programmes as well as to provide a balance to more relaxed foreign ownership legislation. Original productions was one of the many aspects of the Communications Act that were improved through pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. The Joint Scrutiny Committee recommended that the definition of original productions be tightened and that Ofcom be given a duty to establish specified levels for original productions in peak viewing times.
	Rather than have a definition set in stone in primary legislation, we felt that defining original productions by affirmative resolution order would ensure that there was sufficient flexibility to refine the definition in response to changing audience expectation and market conditions. So we introduced amendments to enable the Secretary of State to determine, by affirmative resolution order, the precise definition of what should count as an original production. Amendments were also made requiring Ofcom to ensure that an appropriate amount of time is allocated to the broadcasting of original productions in peak viewing times.
	On 20 January 2003, an indicative draft order was made available during the Commons Committee stage of the Bill to assist the Committee with its consideration of the relevant provisions of the Communications Act 2003 as it progressed through Parliament.
	Section 278 of the 2003 Act places a duty on Ofcom to include conditions in the licences of all licensed public service channels requiring them to ensure that an appropriate amount of airtime, in each year, is allocated to the broadcasting of original productions. The licensed public service channels are Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The time allocated to original productions is to be split in a manner that Ofcom considers appropriate between peak viewing times and other times. Before including such a condition for an original production quota and before deciding what constitutes a peak viewing time for a channel, Ofcom must consult the licence holder on whom it is to be imposed.
	Similarly, under paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the 2003 Act, the Welsh Authority has a duty to secure that an appropriate amount of airtime is allocated to original productions, including in peak viewing times, in relation to their designated public services (taken together). For the time being, the designated public services of the Welsh Authority are S4C and S4C Digital. The Welsh Authority is to agree with Ofcom the proportions of time allocated to original productions and the manner of its split between peak viewing and other times. Ultimately, if they cannot reach agreement, Ofcom can give a direction to the Welsh Authority.
	This instrument does not apply directly to the BBC, but noble Lords may be aware that there was some discussion in another place about how it operates on the separate quota requirements for original productions which apply to the BBC. The position is that, under the amended agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC of 25 January 1996 (amended by an agreement dated 4 December 2003), the corporation, in relation to each of its public television services, is required to comply with arrangements agreed with Ofcom for securing that an appropriate proportion of the broadcasting time is allocated to original productions, and that it is split in an appropriate manner between peak viewing times and other times.
	Furthermore, under the amended agreement, "original productions" in relation to the BBC's public television services taken together, has the same meaning as that specified in relation to a licensed public service channel by order under Section 278(6) of the 2003 Act—that is, this order. The Minister in another place has written a letter explaining our view that this arrangement translates to the BBC in such a way that a repeat of any of its public television services would count as an original production for the purposes of the quotas agreed under the agreement, regardless of which of those services it was originally commissioned for or shown on. That letter has been placed in the Library of both Houses.
	A programme has to meet a number of criteria in order to qualify as an original production. First, in the case of a licensed public service channel, the programme must be commissioned with a view to its first showing on television in the UK being on that channel or, in the case of a Channel 3 service on that service or another Channel 3 service. The different arrangements for Channel 3 reflect the fact that it is a regional service. So, for example, if Yorkshire Television commissioned a programme that was first shown on Anglia Television, it would still be counted for the purposes of the original productions quota. Similar arrangements are made for the Welsh Authority: the programme must be commissioned for showing on one of its designated services; that is, either S4C or S4C Digital.
	Secondly, it must be a European programme. European programmes that are qualifying "European works" will count in full towards the quota. European works are defined in paragraphs l to 4 of Article 6 of the Television Without Frontiers Directive and the text from this directive is set out in the schedule to the order for ease of reference. Broadcasters will in any case already be familiar with the definition of "European works", since it has been in existence since 1989.
	Additionally, if a programme does not qualify fully as a European work we have introduced a means by which a programme may part-qualify. Programmes that meet the criteria under Article 6(5) of the directive—that is, programmes made mainly with authors or workers residing in one or more member states—will part-qualify towards the quota. In addition, programmes in which a Community producer or producers have made what appears to Ofcom to be a significant contribution to the production of the programmes will also part-qualify. The proportion of a part-qualifying work that can be treated as a European programme by Ofcom shall be calculated on the basis of the proportion of the contribution of the Community producer to the total costs of the part-qualifying work, applied as a proportion of the duration of the programme. In assessing whether a contribution is significant, Ofcom must have particular regard to the contribution of Community producers to the total cost of the programme and to the degree of editorial control.
	A formal consultation is required under Section 278(8) and paragraph 8(8) of Schedule 12 to the Communications Act 2003. In accordance with these requirements Ofcom, the BBC and the Welsh Authority were consulted during the preparation of this instrument. We also consulted Channel 3 licence holders, Channel 4 and Channel 5. All those who were consulted responded and their views were considered and taken on board.
	One of the points we considered during the consultation was whether repeats of qualifying original productions should count towards the quota. We decided that the draft order should not exclude repeats. We came to this decision because the original production requirements are important for a number of reasons, in particular to maintain the high quality and character of each of the public service channels and to maintain an appropriate balance between first-run programmes, which help to support a healthy and innovative programme supply market, and repeats. Both of these objectives are important and we explored with Ofcom how the second could be achieved.
	Ofcom has responded by including in its recently issued public service broadcasting consultation document its view that the mix of first-run programmes and repeats is one of the most important elements of the character of a public service channel and any significant change that would make the service, as a whole, materially different would have to be approved by Ofcom. Ofcom has told us that, subject to further consultation with broadcasters, it intends to use its powers under Sections 266, 267 and 358 of the Act to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive explanation of the provisions specified in this order. As the noble Lord has said, the purpose of the order is to establish the definition of an "original production" for the purpose of Section 278 of and paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Communications Act 2003.
	As the Minister has said, Section 278 will come into force on 1 July 2004 and requires that programming quotas are imposed on licensed public service channels—that is, Channels 3, 4 or 5 and the Welsh Authority—for original productions. At present, all licensed public service broadcasters are subject to licence conditions requiring that a percentage of their programming output in each calendar year is original. Comparable licence conditions are to be imposed on licensed public service broadcasters by virtue of this order. However, the new requirements are to be based on the statutory obligations established by the Communications Act 2003. Furthermore, Ofcom is required to consult each licence holder prior to the imposition of an original production quota.
	The new statutory regime is intended to ensure that the programming output of the commercial public service broadcasters remains vibrant and diverse. Indeed, the Government have conferred powers on Ofcom, through the statutory provisions implemented by the Communications Act, to ensure that the programming quota is set and adhered to. Acting in conjunction with the programming quotas for independent and regional production, the order will sustain growth and innovation within our broadcasting industry.
	A programme will be classed as original if it satisfies a number of necessary criteria. First, the programme must be commissioned with a view to its first broadcast being on television in the UK on a licensed public service channel. These arrangements apply equally to the Welsh Authority, which must commission the original production for broadcast on one of its designated services. Secondly, the programme must qualify as a European work, as defined by the Television Without Frontiers Directive. If a work fails to satisfy the requisite criteria, it may be classified as a part-qualifying work under Article 6, paragraph 5 of the directive.
	While we welcome the general thrust of this order— the need to secure originality and diversity in our broadcasting industry—I have one concern, to which the Minister has already referred and which was debated in another place. The Minister has made the point that the order does not apply to the BBC. The BBC is subject to similar requirements under the amended agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. The agreement denotes that the term "original production" has the same meaning as the term specified in this order and that comparable programme quota requirements are applicable.
	However, I find this regulatory anomaly both complicated and unnecessary. The obligations placed on all public service broadcasters are remarkably similar and the dual regulatory regime through which these quota obligations are assessed must be reconsidered during the forthcoming charter renewal period. Although the issue of BBC compliance is not strictly within the scope of this debate, it is inextricably linked. I think the Minister will agree that it is imperative that all broadcasters comply with their quota obligations.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for explaining complex material in, I believe, just inside 10 minutes. I do not think that any of us would benefit from probing into that any further other than to ask one or two brief questions.
	In common with, I believe, the BBC and others involved in broadcasting, we welcome the order. It makes appropriate provision for the definition of original production which will help ensure the strong United Kingdom domestic flavour of public service channels in the future.
	As the Minister intimated, repeats have an important role in bringing forward the transfer from analogue to digital, encouraging people to take up digital television facilities as quickly as possible. As regards repeats, I have a question that concerns the BBC in particular. Why are repeats of original programming not allowed on BBC3 or BBC4? During the passage of the Communications Bill we understood that it was intended that the digital channels would provide new material to attract new audiences, although we would not like to see those channels dedicated solely to that kind of programming.
	Will the Minister assure the House that the calculations which refer to part-qualifying original programming as set out in Article 5 of the order will be done with the collaboration of the broadcasters themselves? The criteria are clear; namely, the cost of production, the degree of editorial control and the origins of authorship. However, my honourable friend the Member for Bath drew my attention to two instances that give rise to questions. Five's children's TV schedule includes a number of programmes that were made on location in New Zealand—for example, "Don't Tell the Koalas"—in collaboration with overseas broadcasters but were originally commissioned and financed by Five 5. If these programmes are not adequately represented in the original productions quota, that could undermine children's programming in the future. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
	My honourable friend in another place also referred to Formula 1 racing that is produced by all three media. Where Grand Prix events that take place outside Britain are broadcast, the event coverage is provided by a domestic producer and supplied to all three media which then add on the all-British commentary, the links, the graphics and so on. Such programmes will need to be produced with sensitivity and with a recognition of the unique problems that arise regarding the coverage of sports and events. My honourable friend has raised an important point to which I hope the Minister will respond.
	Will the Minister guarantee that the timescale for the 2005 original production quotas will be agreed with the public service broadcasters to enable them to meet that timescale? I believe that the BBC and Five 5 have complained of the dangers of a poorly planned timetable. Having said that, I welcome the order and thank the Government for it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for responding to the order. I believe I can give all the assurances that are sought.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked why there was a rather different regime for the BBC than for the other public service broadcasters. That is what is set out and required in the Communications Act 2003. Clearly, that is one of the issues that can legitimately be considered in the BBC charter review, and it will be. I make no judgment on the outcome of that; we have not yet published the results of our consultation. However, I can certainly say that if the outcome is that the BBC's regime for original productions should be more closely aligned with that of other broadcasters, that will be provided for in the charter and the agreement.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked me why repeats on BBC3 and BBC4 were not included. A review of the BBC's digital output is being conducted by Professor Patrick Barwise of the London Business School. He will consider exactly that kind of issue. If we were to allow original productions by stations other than public service broadcasting stations, that would drive a coach and horses through the original production quota. If we were to allow material to be reused indefinitely between BBC channels or between Channel 4, Five 5 and Channel 3, that would also drive a coach and horses through the quota. We have to be cautious about that. It is better to leave that matter for Professor Barwise's review and subsequently for the charter review process.
	The noble Viscount asked how the calculation for part-qualifying productions is arrived at and whether it is done with the collaboration of broadcasters. It could not be done any other way. The broadcasters who have an interest in their programmes being included in the quota of original productions, and those who produce them, whether internally or independently, will have to tell Ofcom the details. They will have to tell Ofcom about the budgets and the degree of participation. In my opening remarks I used the phrase, "make a significant contribution to the production". That can apply whether the actual shooting takes place in New Zealand or at a Formula 1 race track outside Europe. A calculation will have to be made regarding the contribution of European producers. Similarly, the timescale for the introduction of the detailed orders by Ofcom will have to be included in the consultation, to which I have already referred, which it has to undertake before it implements the quotas under this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Museum of London) (Location of Premises) Order 2004

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 6 May be approved [18th and 22nd Reports from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this regulatory reform order is brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Its purpose is to permit the Museum of London to operate a museum anywhere within the confines of Greater London, rather than within the limits of the City of London as the current law requires. That will make it legally possible for the Museum of London to merge with the Museum in Docklands, which is at West India Quay, outside the current geographical limit of the Museum of London's operation.
	The impetus behind the order came from concerns, expressed by the Heritage Lottery Fund, about the financial viability of the Museum in Docklands as an independent institution. The HLF, which invested £11.8 million in the project, considered that the museum's business plan and the management structure in place were inadequate to run the museum. It concluded that the Museum in Docklands would require the operational strength of the Museum of London in order to be successful. It was agreed that the best way to secure the financial position and long-term stability of the Museum in Docklands was for a merger to take place between it and the Museum of London. The governing bodies of both museums formally approved plans for a merger in March 2003.
	We consulted extensively on the regulatory reform order. From the responses received, it was fully supported. The House will wish to note that the original cost savings calculated by the Museum of London to flow from the merger were overstated and have been revised. Estelle Morris has written to the chairmen of the Regulatory Reform Committees in each House to inform them of the revision. The Museum of London has assured my officials in writing that its funds are sufficient to take over and maintain the Museum in Docklands.
	The order, if approved, will mean that the HLF's investment and a further £3.14 million invested by the London Docklands Development Corporation will have been saved, and the Museum in Docklands—a museum that has already opened and is having a positive impact in the local community—will be allowed to continue.
	I thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the way in which they responded to the unfortunate fact that we gave them inaccurate figures in the first place. I am glad that they have seen fit to agree that the order should go forward despite that original error. I am satisfied that the draft order is compatible with convention rights. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 6 May be approved [18th and 22nd Reports from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, what the Government are doing is obviously very sensible, but why was the museum confined to the City of London in the original agreement? It seems absurd.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, as the Minister said, the purpose of the draft order is to amend Section 4(1) and (2) of the Museum of London Act 1965 to allow the Museum of London to maintain and exhibit its collections within the limits of Greater London, rather than within the limits of the City of London as the current law requires. That will allow the Museum of London to merge with the Museum in Docklands, situated in the Docklands area of London at West India Quay.
	There is no question but that we on these Benches want to do all that we can to support the financial viability of the Museum in Docklands. We therefore welcome the order. I also join the Minister in thanking those who have allowed it to go forward, notwithstanding the error in the figures for the cost savings. I was given the revised cost savings and accompanying information this morning by the Minister in another place, Estelle Morris, for which I am grateful.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches think the general purpose of the order entirely sensible. By introducing the order, the Government seem to have laid the foundations of the possibility of greater success, not only for the Museum of London but in the general area of museums. It makes perfect sense that the Museum of London and the Museum in Docklands together can increase the attraction of both museums.
	The Minister mentioned the business plan and management structure of the Museum in Docklands. In the commercial world—in the private sector—on such projects when the business plan has proved unsuccessful in producing the results expected, there is always a temptation to cut down as many staff and overheads as one can to get the books straight. That is an approach based purely on accounts.
	The Museum in Docklands is a very good idea, and with the proper talent and direction—one gets it so often in museums and galleries nowadays in Britain, I am happy to say—there is every possibility that it will be extremely successful. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that it has already been nominated for a European museum of the year award. I am entirely optimistic about its income stream and that it will see a significant increase in years to come, not least because of the arrangements in the order.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am again grateful to noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the order. I was asked why there was the original restriction to the City of London. The answer is that half the funding comes from the Corporation of London, which takes a share in the management and clearly had an interest in the museum being local to it. However, it is entirely content that the merger should take place and with the order for that purpose.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill carries the hopes, aspirations and prayers of millions. It is a simple Bill, yet one which can profoundly influence the lives of more than 6 million carers—people who have been shunted out of circulation into the confines of homes, sick bays and impoverished environments. There has been a scandalous, historic disregard of people whose lives revolve around giving themselves to others. Now the Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons by Hywel Francis and passed all its stages there, aims to change carers from neglected appendages to valued personalities, enjoying full human rights.
	There is a roll of honour of politicians who have initiated legislation to help carers, which includes Malcolm Wicks and my noble friends Lord Carter, Lord Pendry and Lady Pitkeathley. Her special qualities are partly explained by her 10 years' experience as chief executive of the Carers National Association—although there is no simple explanation of why she is so very special. There is only one Lady Pitkeathley. The legislation with which they were associated was the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. Those were valuable steps forward, but it was not until this Bill that we had proposals to help the carer as a whole person, rather than solely as a carer. This is the vital aspect of the Bill.
	I wish to express my appreciation of Carers UK which has been exceptionally helpful with its expert knowledge and guidance throughout. But today the main honours go to Hywel Francis and his wife Mair, carers for over 16 years of their son Sam who had Down's Syndrome and who tragically died some seven years ago. Inspired by Sam, they associated themselves with the carers' cause and this fine Bill is the result of that. The hope has been expressed that it should become known as Sam's Bill and, given the all-party support that it has enjoyed, I am sure that all noble Lords would respect that wish and ensure that it soon becomes knows as Sam's Act.
	I can think of no better memorial than an Act of Parliament which benefits 10 per cent of our population, some 6 million carers; an Act which enables carers to enjoy equal opportunities, denied to them at present; an Act which guarantees carers comprehensive information about their rights, denied to them at present; and an Act which enables carers fully to develop their lives and individuality, denied to them at present. These would be big gains for people who hitherto have been big losers. With such an Act on the statute book they could pursue their vital caring role while simultaneously exercising their rights and developing their training, employment, education and leisure, instead of merely being adjuncts to the disabled or old person. Of course the needs of the old and disabled person are of tremendous importance but the acknowledgement of that fact can and should go hand in hand with provisions for the carer as a whole person. There is no conflict. In fact, meeting the needs of carers contributes to making them better and happier carers. The two are complementary not contradictory.
	I would like briefly to explain the main points about each clause. Clause 1 deals with one of the most basic and troublesome problems facing carers—lack of information. Carers are simply not receiving the help, guidance and assistance that they so desperately need, and the main reason is that they are unaware of what is available or what they are entitled to. That is an astonishing state of affairs. In the Commons debate on the Bill, the MP for Banbury, Tony Baldry, said that 98 per cent of typical carers in a typical local authority area told him that when social services did not have a clear statutory responsibility to assist, no one explained any of their rights to them. No one gave them information about taking a break. No one from social services told them how to look after a relative or friend coming out of hospital. No one offered to explain community care legislation to them. Carers rights were never explained to them. That is why I believe that social services need to be under a statutory obligation to do that.
	Further evidence of the problem comes from Imelda Redmond, Chief Executive of Carers UK, who said that,
	"there are too many carers struggling without support, cutting back on food to make ends meet, going without breaks—having only one weekend off a year".
	People who are denied information about rights are effectively denied those rights. For the many people with the heavy responsibilities of caring for old, frail or disabled people, such a denial is devastating. The need for the Bill stems from the lamentable experience of millions of carers in England and Wales and the personal experience of Hywel and Mair Francis. It is time for action.
	Clause 1 sets us on the way and I am confident that this and the other provisions of the Bill will transform this deplorable state of affairs. On the basic issue of information, Clause 1 would amend the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. It would ensure that when a local authority is assessing a disabled adult or child it would have to inform the carer of their rights to an assessment of their needs. Although guidance indicates that carers should be informed of their rights, the Social Services Inspectorate report states that carers are not routinely offered an assessment. Clause 1 will ensure that they are.
	Clause 2 would amend the same two Acts as Clause 1 and ensure that local authorities must amend their assessment procedures so that they incorporated issues of work, training, life-long learning and leisure. Thus we would see a transformation in the way carers are regarded—not before time, they would be seen as individuals rather than ciphers. Instead of simply "helping carers to care" this clause could help to signpost carers to new training courses and guide them back to work—and 80 per cent of carers are of working age. Some 80 per cent of carers would wish to return to work if they could, according to Carers UK. At present, assessments and provisions for carers are provided to enable them to care. The clause helps to change the ethos from assessing carers only on their ability to provide care, to perceiving them as people with full entitlements to a rounded life.
	Clause 3, regarding carers' assessments, would also amend the two Acts mentioned previously and ensure that a specific local authority could request the help of any local authority, local education authority, or housing authority, to assist in the planning of carers' services. That would deal with the lack of joined-up policies and would secure co-operation for services to both the disabled person and the carer. It would prevent carers falling between half a dozen stools, thus replacing confusion with co-operation. Fewer things are worse than for a perplexed person to be shuffled from pillar to post by, say, social services and health organisations each not knowing what the others are doing. There is a powerful case for co-operation.
	The other Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are standard ones and include the financial provision and short title. Altogether, the Bill, which has enjoyed cross-party support and has laudable aims combined with practical policies, will enrich the statute book and the lives of millions of carers. It has the support of over 300 national and local organisations and their hopes now rest with this House. I am sure they will not be disappointed.
	If I may, I should like to add just one further comment. If the House sees fit to pass the Bill, it is vital that it should be fully implemented. We all know that some Acts lie dormant because they are moribund and ignored. As a warning example of what can happen, Tom Clarke, a longstanding friend of disabled people, complained in the House of Commons that an Act that he initiated as long ago as 1986—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act—was only half implemented now. We want none of that nonsense with this measure. We want instant and continuous implementation. It would be incredible that someone doing so devoted a job as caring for a disadvantaged person should be denied the information about benefits or available support. That would be incredible and indefensible. But I trust that this Bill will be a vibrant piece of legislation which will indeed transform the lives of millions of hard pressed carers. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Ashley commend this important measure to your Lordships' House with all his customary facility and commitment. His speech alone justifies a Second Reading for the Bill.
	Like my noble friend, I warmly congratulate my honourable friend Dr Hywel Francis on having piloted his Bill through the House of Commons with such skill and success. Speaking as a serial legislator in this policy area—both as a private Member and a Minister—I hold his achievement in high admiration. By all of my tests of the good MP, he is a parliamentarian of very considerable note.
	Hywel has spoken, as has my noble friend, of the unfailing support of Carers UK and particularly of Emily Holzhausen at all stages of the Bill's progress so far. I know how deeply he appreciates also the extent both of all-party support for his Bill and that of Ministers and officials in departments of state all across Whitehall, more especially that of the Department of Health. The story is one of exemplary co-operation between Ministers, parliamentarians, officials and the voluntary sector to make life better for people whose work as carers in the community is reliably estimated to be saving the taxpayer £57 billion a year.
	That striking figure is one on which those who always insist on the precise costing of help for carers should reflect. For the cost of the alternative of funding nursing and other institutional care is hugely more than that of giving carers in the community the right support at the right time and in the right place. And if failure to give that support leads to the carer's breakdown, the public funding of alternative care often becomes necessary not only for the person/s she or he is caring for, but also for the carer. That is what can and does result from a total preoccupation with cost and not net cost and knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
	For me this is a deeply evocative occasion. It recalls the warmth of the all-party support I received, 35 years ago, after publishing my Private Member's Bill that became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which Carers UK described today as,
	"landmark legislation of historic impact",
	and the RNIB as having,
	"marked the beginning of a long revolution in the life chances of all disabled people and their carers".
	It was not a personal achievement. A wide fellowship of parliamentarians worked with me to enact my Bill—notably Jack Ashley, as he then was, the late and much revered John Astor and my good and ever-resourceful friend Lewis Carter-Jones. The Hywel Francis Bill—"Sam's Bill", as it has been movingly described—is a lineal descendant of that legislation and eminently deserving of swift enactment as now drafted. I stress the word "swift" from long experience of the absolute necessity for supporters of Private Members' Bills to act with constant regard to the very strictly limited parliamentary time available to them.
	The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, like the 1970 Act, is about giving carers more choice and the opportunity to lead fuller and more fulfilling lives. It will ensure that assessment of their needs takes that goal wholly into account in relation to leisure, training and work opportunity and a more co-ordinated response from statutory authorities in meeting them. The Bill also recognises the crucial importance of making sure that carers are fully informed and updated on the help to which they are entitled.
	Research points time and again to the importance of full and regularly updated information as a gateway to support. The experience of Carers UK, in promoting initiatives like Carers' Rights Day annually, is that carers are very often unaware of their rights and entitlements. There have been improvements in some areas, one recent study showing that carers were more likely to have adequate information if they had become carers in the last two years.
	Yet as of now Carers UK alone receives 50,000 calls a year on its CarersLine for advice on benefits and rights. Again, Carers London—its London-based advocacy project—provides advice to over 2,000 carers every year, half of them from black and ethnic minority communities, where clearly the difficulties carers have in accessing information are even more serious than elsewhere.
	Here I must declare an interest as Vice-President of the National Information Forum, whose work is now widely and rightly seen as one of the most valuable resources available to disability organisations. I pay warm tribute today to Ann Darnbrough and her colleagues at the forum for the crucially important leadership they perform. They deserve all the support everyone who can help to extend their work can give them.
	I believe that the passing of this Bill will lead to carers being much better informed and a disturbing set of facts published by Macmillan Cancer Relief two days ago—which in terms of this debate could not have been more felicitously timed—strongly re-emphasises the importance of its urgent enactment.
	The principal facts are that disability benefits went unclaimed by some 83,000 people terminally ill with cancer in the UK: 69,000 in England, 10,000 in Scotland, 3,000 in Wales and 900 in Northern Ireland. Their total loss in benefits was £126.5 million. Moreover, the financial problems of people with terminal cancer are now also being experienced by increasing numbers of people who are living with cancer, but not terminally ill. A cancer patient in Luton quoted by Macmillan says of her experience:
	"I found claiming benefit more stressful than having cancer".
	That deeply worrying comment should inform our approach to the urgency of the task of making this Bill law.
	Clause 1 of the Bill, as my noble friend said, seeks to ensure that local authorities have strategies to improve information to carers about their rights. When a disabled person is being assessed, a local authority will have a duty to tell carers about their rights. That simple procedural change is most welcome, as is much else in this Bill.
	I said at the outset that this was a deeply evocative occasion for me and there are two other reasons why. From its inception, I have been closely associated with Crossroads—Caring for Carers—which helps carers to take breaks from caring; and I know how committed the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is in that important policy area. I am a founder patron of Crossroads, an admirable charity, and when I became Minister for Disabled People in 1974 I approved a "pump-priming" grant over a three-year period to facilitate its expansion. This is the charity's 30th anniversary year and, looking back, I can think of no better investment I ever made as a Minister. Its work now extends nationwide and I am sure that all who work or have worked for Crossroads share my pleasure at the prospect of this Bill's early enactment. For its costs too will be a very wise investment.
	I am today most vividly reminded also of the late Dame Flora Robson—a carers' champion if ever there was one—who came to see me within a month of my ministerial appointment. She came as chairman of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, whose pioneering work I know my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who worked in the 1970s for Manchester social services, will readily recall. I discussed with Flora the need for a carers' allowance, which happily I was able to legislate for the following year as the first-ever such allowance anywhere in the world.
	Flora was a relentless campaigner for effective legislative protection for carers and she too would be rooting for this Bill if she were here today. So for her—and for all who led the way in the voluntary sector in improving the status and well-being of carers—I wish this humane Bill Godspeed.

Lord Rix: My Lords, it is always a pleasure and an honour to follow the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. Like them, I most warmly welcome this Bill and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Second Reading debate. I have a long-standing interest in and awareness of the difficulties facing carers of people with a learning disability, both from my personal experiences of having a 52 year-old daughter and a three year-old grandson both with Down's Syndrome—the same as Sam—and as President of the Royal Mencap Society.
	Nine years ago, I introduced the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill into this House. The Bill sought to guarantee that every carer would have their short-term break needs assessed and met. Despite having cross-party support in both Houses, with the noble Lord, Lord Morris—then Alf Morris MP—trying to get it through the other place, the Bill was not taken up by the government of the day, leaving many carers struggling to cope. Over the past decade, there has been continued growth in awareness of the issues facing carers, but there is still a great deal of work to be done. I am therefore very pleased that this Government have decided to support this important Private Member's Bill.
	The role of a carer for someone with a severe learning disability is usually full-time and a lifelong commitment. Medical advances and the beginnings of a welcome change in attitudes among healthcare professionals mean that adults with profound learning disabilities are living longer. Family members can therefore be carrying out their caring role well into their seventies and eighties, which is a huge contribution on behalf of society. We must therefore support carers in every way that we can and begin to see them as requiring support both in and outside their caring role.
	It is particularly appropriate for us to be considering this Bill today during national Learning Disability Week. This year, Mencap has launched a new campaign, Treat me right!, to highlight the poor treatment that people with a learning disability often receive in their dealings with the NHS. The Treat me right! report shows that carers are often left to pick up the pieces of poor treatment. Many carers are not confident that the most basic needs of their loved one will be attended to in hospital, or even in the GP's surgery, leading to an unnecessary pressure that has knock-on effects for both the carer and the cared-for person. As such, I hope that all your Lordships who are here to support the Bill today will also support the report from the Treat me right! campaign.
	Clause 1 will ensure that all carers are informed of their right to a carer's assessment. That is incredibly important. Mencap's Breaking Point campaign, which was launched during last year's Learning Disability Week, found that eight out of 10 families caring for a person with a profound learning disability were at breaking point; six out of 10 of those families had never had a carer's assessment; and five out of 10 had not had their support packages reviewed in the past year. I hope that Clause 1 will begin to address these often heartbreaking situations.
	Of course, in order to be of real benefit to carers, assessments must actually meet the needs of the carer. Clause 2 of the Bill is admirable, and I hope that it will be valuable to carers who wish to lead a life outside their caring role. Unfortunately, too often it has been the case that, even with legislation, carers do not get what they need. Obviously, resources play a major part in this, as can an authority's unwillingness to accept the carer's real needs, but it can also be because different authorities are not working together effectively. I hope that Clause 3 will address this last issue, although other authorities are required to give only "due consideration" to calls for assistance from a local authority.
	Having heaped praise on the Bill, I have one major concern. As it is worded, no safeguards are in place to ensure that local authorities comply fully not only with the stated words but also with the broader intention of this legislation. It is worth reminding your Lordships that the Bill started out as a call for "equal opportunities for carers". While the Government felt that that was too broad a term to be included in the Bill, it is still very important that carers feel confident that their local services will support them to lead fulfilling lives outside their caring role.
	As such, I hope that the Government will commit to ensuring the Bill's proper implementation by encouraging local authorities to meet their duties—perhaps through such overworked mechanisms as performance indicators. As we all know only too well, legislation is only as effective as its implementation, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to monitor the implementation of this Bill so that my concerns can be assuaged.
	I shall conclude now by reiterating my support for this important Bill and by expressing my gratitude to Dr Hywel Francis for bringing it before Parliament and to the Government for supporting it.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to address your Lordships in this great Chamber for the first time. On first impressions, this House feels like a well oiled machine, churning its cogs and wheels without effort. But the reality, I know, is that this place requires the highest degree of leadership and individual professionalism, which are so characteristic of good management. I want to record my thanks from the outset for the very courteous and efficient reception that I have received here in these early days.
	My honour in standing before your Lordships is heartfelt. My early acquaintance with this Parliament began in another place in the 1980s with my first experience of that essentially "British" value of volunteering for a good cause. In my case, the "good cause" was to work in the Liberal Democrat Whips Office. I add hastily for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Roper that I harbour no such ambitions in this place. Even from those early days, it became evident to this eager researcher that your Lordships' House was the place to look for truly informed debates on the issues of the day.
	The other reason that I feel honoured is due to no effort of my own; that my sex and ethnicity can, of themselves, render these Benches more reflective of the changing nature of British politics is good. I value that, and I hope to be able to make a contribution from that perspective in time to come.
	An opportunity to speak on this Bill is particularly gratifying, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing it in this House. Private Member's Bills, such as this, embody the very best of what is possible when we work together, and I am grateful to the honourable Member for Aberavon in the other place for bringing this forward. The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill goes a long way towards defining "equal opportunity" in that it aims to equip individuals to make the most of their personal circumstances and potential for the benefit of the wider community.
	Caring is something which has touched all our lives in one way or another. In fact, caring for age-related infirmities is on the rise. As the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, reminded us in his most excellent maiden speech earlier this week, scientific advances are with us to stay. The implications for longevity of the march of science is that caring is a growth business and that it, too, is here to stay.
	The Bill will go far in advancing rights for carers, but it is particularly important as it offers new opportunities to bring down the barriers that exist for many Asian and other minority ethnic community carers across England and Wales. The impact of caring is significant for those communities. The 2001 census tells us that 7.9 per cent of the UK population is from a different ethnic background. That includes 4 per cent of our population who describe themselves as Asian—my own background. On those figures, that could mean that one in every 12 or 13 carers is from a minority ethnic group.
	Research by Carers UK has found that there is a common assumption that people within those communities will "look after their own". Evidence from a seminal work by the Social Services Inspectorate in 2000 showed that, as a result, minority communities had far poorer access to support. We also know that people from some groups within these communities are more likely than others to experience poverty—most notably, people of African, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origins.
	As the culture of caring for their own is very strong in those communities, we find that caring goes unrecognised in a large number of cases. A recent report on the financial hardship faced by carers found that carers from ethnic minorities were more likely to suffer from poverty than white British or European carers, and that black carers were more likely to have given up work to care than their white counterparts.
	First and foremost among barriers to support for carers is a lack of knowledge about their rights as carers. In London, we see multiple barriers to these groups accessing information about their rights. Language, illiteracy and cultural norms for female carers all serve to hold back assistance from social services and other bodies. The fact that the Bill places a new duty on local authorities to inform carers of their rights will go some way towards resolving those barriers. The Bill puts what was always supposed to have been good practice on to a new footing where it is now a requirement.
	The hope is that once the obligations on local authorities come into force, they will move to audit their information on the different minority communities in their area. A review of what is provided, how it is provided for non-English speakers and the provision of training for the relevant staff to sensitise them to the different cultural and religious norms could deliver real benefits.
	Finally, the Bill marks a win-win situation for all. We know from the figures that providing more support for carers will enable more people to work as carers. We also know that carers with skills beyond those required in caring tasks will contribute to the workforce and enhance society as a whole. So this is a good Bill and I am glad to have made a contribution with so distinguished a line-up of speakers.
	In conclusion, the business of this House brings to mind the observations of William Gladstone, in another place, well over a century ago. They are still relevant to this House today, although in different circumstances. On 29 January 1869, he said:
	"Your business is not to govern the country but it is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it".
	In that spirit I look forward to joining your Lordships in that task.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her excellent maiden speech which I think is a foretaste of her skills and passion. It was a moving address which demonstrates her commitment to the many causes that I know she will espouse. She will be an energetic, knowledgeable and expert Member of this House. She has much experience in campaigning. At one stage, in the area where I live, she gained the highest ethnic minority vote in London for the Liberal Democrats. I look forward very much to hearing many more of her contributions.
	Turning to the important Bill which we are considering today, I add my congratulations to Hywel Francis MP and to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and my thanks to Carers UK and others for their help on the Bill, which promotes greater consistency and a more integrated approach in helping to enhance the rights of carers and to introduce them into new areas of work and opportunities in life.
	For the first time the Bill recognises that carers' information must include not only health, social services and benefits but also housing information and information on education and training opportunities. It will help us to appreciate, perhaps most importantly, the impact of the end of the caring role. For many, especially older people and those caring for them, that will be at the time of the death of the cared for person. Carers have to get over the bereavement that that entails and to rebuild their lives. Most carers of older people are older people themselves, even if they are the children of the cared for person. The peak age for caring is between 45 and 60. Many give up work to care when they are at or close to retirement age.
	We take carers very much for granted. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminds us of that and has done much work in this field, for which we are all grateful. However, what we do not take into account is their isolation and poverty—particularly the impact on their pension rights, especially if they give up final salary schemes—and their ill health, both mental and physical. In giving carers further choices and opportunities, the Bill will help those who are older to battle with the discriminatory attitudes they often face in education and training as well as in the labour market.
	We must recognise that if the Bill can help to overcome some of those difficulties it will be of huge benefit to the economy generally, as well as to carers individually, and at no extra cost. Although the Bill is somewhat more relaxed than in its original form when it had very much clearer directions, I accept that it provides opportunities to take forward planning and other measures and strengthen and promote them, provided all those who support the Bill work together, which I am sure they will.
	Research by Caring Costs found that 80 per cent of carers would like to return to work. That is an enormous potential boost to our economy. However, for individual carers, a purposeful, practical plan for the next phase of their life will help translate despair for many into hope for the future. Surely, we owe that to carers. That is why I strongly support the Bill.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I begin by adding my own congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her moving and excellent speech. I am very glad that she can be recruited to the band of usual suspects who can always be relied on to talk on carers' issues. I wonder whether any colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches share the thought I had about how pleased Lady Seear, such a doughty campaigner for carers and a great mentor of mine, would have been to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner.
	I am delighted to speak today in support of this important Bill and pay warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing it and to Dr Hywel Francis for the masterly way in which he piloted it through its stages in another place. I want also, as everyone else has done, to thank Carers UK, especially Emily Holzhausen and Dave Clark, although in doing so I must declare an interest as their former employer and now their vice-president.
	I want also to pay tribute to the Minister in the other place and the officials in the various government departments who have been so supportive, and to give special acknowledgement to my noble friend Lord Warner, not only for the supportive part I am sure he will play today but for the contribution he made to developing carers' services in the 1990s. As a senior research fellow at the University of Kent he took part in an unprecedented programme of research on carers on behalf of Carers UK (then Carers National Association) considering the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and carers' and local authorities' experiences of that Act. The two reports he produced, entitled, Just a Fairy Tale?, published in 1994, and Better Tomorrows published in 1995 provided invaluable evidence which really helped the passage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. Both were an authoritative guide to what carers were getting or not getting and were the basis on which we campaigned for the first carers Act.
	We are here today in this third Private Members' Bill for carers in what we might perhaps begin to call a series. I have had the privilege of being involved with them all, in rather different ways. For the first, the Malcolm Wicks Bill, I was involved as chief executive of what is now Carers UK and in the role of supporting and advising the parliamentarians and organising the carers' lobby. The then political divide might have been a problem. We had a Labour MP with a Private Members' Bill and a Conservative government. However, it proved not to be so thanks to the good offices of the then Minister, now MEP, John Bowis.
	The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act gave all carers of any age a right to request an assessment of their ability to care when the person they were caring for was about to have a community care assessment, and placed a duty on local authorities to take the results into account when deciding what services to provide for disabled persons.
	For the second Bill, the Tom Pendry Bill, I was by then a Member of Your Lordships' House and had the honour of taking that Bill through here as well as being closely involved in the campaign which supported it. The second Bill was different from the first, insofar as by then, 2000, the carers' issue was much more firmly on the political agenda and followed on from the excellent carers' strategy announced by this Prime Minister in early 1999. The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 gave carers aged 16 and upwards the right to request an assessment of their ability to care as long as the person they cared for was someone for whom services might be provided, but it also gave local authorities powers to provide carers with their own services. Very importantly, it gave local authorities the power to provide voucher schemes for breaks for carers and to make direct payment to them.
	This third Bill is different again. We have had the same media attention, the same negotiations, the same well-organised campaign and the same struggles about what is and what is not possible in a Private Members' Bill, but this time it goes beyond what was aimed for and achieved by the previous Bills or even the carers' strategy. It goes beyond getting carers more recognition of their needs and attempts to achieve for them what a carer in one memorable phrase that I will never forget referred to as "an ordinary life".
	That is what carers want above all: the right to do the things which most of us take for granted. They do not want to have these things—time off, a job, leisure opportunities, to go to the leisure centre or just to have a weekend break—at the expense of their caring. Let us be clear: most carers do not want to give up their caring duties; they love the person for whom they are caring, or at least have a very strong sense of obligation to them. However, they want to combine caring and also have a bit of free time, a job which earns money or fulfils them. They want to feel like an equal partner in the delivery of care and not a passive recipient of what someone wants to dole out to them.
	The Bill is so important to carers because it establishes the principle of equal opportunities—a concept missing from previous legislation, however welcome that legislation was. This legislation takes carers out of being a "client" or a "user" and almost onto a rights basis. Carers have warmly welcomed this development. That is clearly emphasised by the huge amount of support from over 300 organisations, as my noble friend Lord Ashley reminded noble Lords.
	It is very important to capitalise on this good will and to see that the guidance which is issued as a result of the Bill explores further the issue of carers and equal opportunities and looks at how social services can actively promote equal opportunities within all their policies for carers.
	I want to say a word about carers and health. The original Bill contained provisions which would have placed a duty on health bodies and local authorities to work together to promote the health and well-being of carers. In Committee, it was agreed that we would lose this clause in favour of another measure. At Third Reading on 14 May, Stephen Ladyman, the Minister in another place, said:
	"We can better deliver on the promise to ensure that PCTs will have to consult and take into account the health needs of carers through developmental support rather than through directing them through secondary legislation. I assure the House that although we will not proceed with the directions we will pursue alternatives".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/04; col. 586.]
	It would be helpful if the Minister could report on any progress that has been made on this issue and expand further on what they intend to do to provide developmental support and what those alternatives will be.
	The General Household Survey found that 72 per cent of carers who provide over 50 hours of care per week suffer from ill-health; that 50 per cent have been treated for a stress-related disorder since becoming a carer; and that almost half have been treated for a physical injury. While there have been positive developments in local authorities in recognising carers, the NHS still has some way to go. So this is a very important issue.
	Also important in the Bill is the duty to consider whether the carer wishes to work, to enter education or life-long learning and, indeed, leisure as part of the assessment. It gives powers to local authorities to require housing, education and other departments to help in the delivery of anything under the two previous carers' Acts. So it links with previous legislation but it goes further than any Bill has gone before. I am convinced that it will make a huge contribution in enabling carers to lead that ordinary life. That is what they want; that is what they deserve; and that is what they have a right to. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill, which, most appropriately, has been introduced in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
	I have read the debates on the Bill in another place, and I too should like to pay particular tribute to the author of the Bill, Dr Hywel Francis, MP for Aberavon, a place for which I have particular regard, and not least because my kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was born and brought up there and there too fought his first parliamentary election battle.
	The commitment to the disabled and those who care for them that Dr Hywel Francis has shown, both in his own personal life and in Parliament from his maiden speech onward, is more than impressive. The Bill, fully accepted by the Government and now before your Lordships' House, carries that commitment forward. Its important aim is to ensure that appropriate help and wider opportunities are known and available to this vital, yet still far too undervalued, group of carers; and not just on a postcode lottery basis, but universally.
	Frankly, I have to admit to being somewhat surprised that such a Bill should have been necessary. When one considers not just the benefit the individual concerned receives from the carer's dedicated and loving support, but also the economic benefit we all receive, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, pointed out, because the state does not have to bear the full cost of residential care—an amazing £57 billion a year I believe—it is even more amazing.
	We in this House have recently had a number of debates on the needs and still far from equal opportunities of our country's disabled and disadvantaged citizens. But this Bill, quite rightly, deals with the other vital half of the equation. It does so by placing a duty on local authorities to ensure that some six million carers who look after sick or disabled family members or friends in their homes are fully informed of their rights to an assessment for the kind of help, support and opportunities that could help make their lives more fulfilling.
	Sadly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, the important duty placed on the NHS and social services to promote the health and welfare of all carers was lost during the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, I think that we all would want to emphasise that the effect should be carried out. Clearly, by doing our best to ensure healthy carers, apart from preventing suffering to the carer and the cared for, we are also—yet again—saving the financial cost of having to provide full community care.
	With the context of what is being proposed, I hope that special attention will be given to speeding up the provision of practical—often relatively inexpensive—carer equipment which, if provided promptly, makes all the difference to a carer's ability to cope. My noble friend Lady Finlay, who is particularly sad not to be here today, especially asked me to stress that the time carers still have to wait for hoists, commodes, door widening and other necessary housing adaptations remains. That is not only totally unacceptable, but worse, it is counter productive. The carer becomes increasingly exhausted and unable to cope. Ultimately, the patient ends up in hospital, leaving the carer feeling guilty that he or she has failed: hardly the intended result.
	I turn finally to the expected very positive outcomes of the Bill. I should especially like to commend two specific parts. First, a duty is laid on responsible authorities to co-operate in providing necessary services. That clearly echoes and reinforces other "joined up" government initiatives—seen most recently perhaps in the Children Bill. Secondly, the Bill seeks to improve carers' chances of finding employment. In these days of greater emphasis on, and achievements for, equal opportunities for women and people of different racial backgrounds in employment as well as other areas, the duty on local authorities to ensure that carers are given equality of opportunity in education, training and leisure is particularly welcome. No doubt organisations such as TOPPS can be useful here.
	Clearly, flexibility and the need for part-time arrangements in the organisation of training and jobs will be crucial for the majority of carers if that welcome move is to become a reality. Also needed by many carers will be the availability of another person who can cover caring duties while the carer is undertaking training, retraining or is working.
	One group of carers whom I hope will benefit hugely from the Bill are young carers. The All-Party Group on Children recently had the opportunity of hearing from a group of children with such responsibilities. They were an impressive group, keeping families together where considerable problems existed—such as a parent disabled, mentally ill or with a drug problem—while also trying to attend school. I must say that their stories did not always reflect well on how their peers treated them, nor indeed on the support and understanding you would have expected them to receive from their teachers.
	I will keep your Lordships no longer, but once again I wish the Bill, with its cross-party support, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, a speedy passage on to the statute book and, more importantly, into practice.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, it is also my pleasure to rise to support this particularly important Bill, which is another building block towards giving 6 million carers in this country a better deal. Both Malcolm Wicks's Act, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, and mine, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, have been built on by Dr Francis in the Bill. All three of us were lucky enough to have done well in the private Members' ballot in the other place and, one would argue, even more fortunate to have received support from across the political divide. From those who have spoken so far, it is clear that that spirit still prevails. I am sure that we all look forward to the granting of Royal Assent to the Bill.
	I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed with the BBC "Breakfast" programme a few days ago, which dealt with the problems of carers and those who are cared for without any recognition of the large body of parliamentarians in this and the other House who have shown by the Bill and the two previous Acts genuine concern for carers and their recognition of the important role that they play in society. Nevertheless, we have before us today a Bill that, I hope, the media will recognise and understand and take steps to bring to the notice of the public.
	More importantly, it should be brought to the attention of carers themselves, because they have a great lack of knowledge. For it is a fact that many carers do not know about the rights that already exist—the rights that have been fought for in this and the other place on their behalf. With the passing of the Bill, it will be easier for those rights to be understood, as carers will automatically be told of their rights when the person for whom they care is assessed. It gives local authorities new and strong powers to ensure that carers receive that information about their rights. In assessments, it also places a duty on local authorities to provide rights in the areas of leisure time, training and work opportunities. Local authorities can enlist the assistance of housing, education and health departments to support carers. This legislation is a gigantic step forward for carers beyond the two previous Acts, as has already been said. It is as important as they were at the time.
	As with Malcolm Wicks's Act, which led the way to both my Act and Dr Francis's Bill, all have shown the appreciation that this House and the other place have for those who do so much, often with little recognition, for those who are in need of care. Despite my Act, if I can call it that—the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, called it the Tom Pendry Act, so let us continue to call it that from time to time—the situation for carers is not perfect. The Bill before us and, I believe, another Act or two will be needed. We are building bit by bit. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already referred to a small gap in the Bill, which may be ironed out—whether at this stage or later remains to be seen.
	The important thing for me, and, I am sure, everyone here, is that we are making progress to make this a better place for carers. The Carers and Disabled Children Act was itself an important step forward. It gave local authorities the ability to provide support for carers, giving them an independence that they had not previously enjoyed.
	I echo those who have said great things about UK Carers, which has done so much. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has done more than almost anyone else to provide information for those of us who have sponsored such Bills in the past. We should all congratulate them on their efforts over the years. UK carers gave me one example of many that emanated from the power that my Act gave to local authorities. A local authority gave a carer 10 driving lessons so that she could learn to drive. She lived in a rural area with little or no public transport and could not drive. Her husband had had a stroke and could not drive. Now, as a result of her passing her driving test, they can get to the doctor and local amenities and are so much more independent. As I said, that is just one case among many that could be put before the House today.
	Carers can use the legislation to enable them to get better breaks to suit them, rather than the local authority determining when they should have a break. However, as we know, many local authorities have not passed on the provision for the rights of carers in my Act. The Bill, when enacted, will ensure that all carers will be made aware of their rights. Unfortunately, as I said, some local authorities did not use the provision. It gave local authorities the power to give direct payments to carers—cash—so that they could arrange their own services. In its research document, Missed Opportunities, Carers UK found that only a few carers had experience of direct payments. Those who received them said that they had been able to find many solutions that they needed.
	Essentially, in many ways, the Bill is more important than the two that went before it. It certainly strengthens the two Acts on the statute book. I cannot wait—I am sure that the House cannot either—for the Bill to receive Royal Assent so that carers in this country can benefit from it.

Lord Addington: My Lords, we have reached the stage where everything has been said and everyone has said it, so I shall try to be as brief as I can. My first duty is a very pleasant one: to welcome my noble friend to our Benches as a full Member of the House. She said that she had no inspiration to work in the Whips' Office. Wearing my Whip's hat, I can say that she is one colleague who it will take a little time to drag in to do dogsbody work, but we have not given up on her yet.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, mentioned, the Bill builds on best practice. As with many areas of legislation, there has been a snowball effect in that as we deal with one set of problems we realise that there are others, and we have only dealt with them in half measures because we have not opened them up before. With this legislation the snowball has grown and is moving faster. I hope that the legislation will attract better things to it. If it is properly enforced, we will know exactly what is going on.
	The Bill contains three big clauses. The first relates to carers' right to an assessment, and informs them that they have that right. Information is power. I am fairly sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathly, will agree with me on this. The first time that I heard her speak, I made an incorrect assumption and she disagreed with me, but that was a long time ago. All voluntary bodies tend to spend their time telling people what their rights are. Any such organisation will spend hours telling people, "You can do this; you can have that". Ensuring that an official tells individuals that they should have something done for them is a huge step forward. It is definitely best practice.
	The Government attempt to embrace such an approach in many respects. The one-stop shop for social security is an idea aimed at conveying information to people; for example, to ensure that they stop underclaiming, that they know what they are doing and that officials know what is going on. That is vital to ensuring that the Government do not waste vast amounts of time in putting unenacted legislation on the books and putting aside budgets that are not used. If ever there were a good start to a Bill, this is it.
	Clause 2 aims basically to enable carers to lead a normal life. The fact that someone is a carer does not mean that he or she should resort to the self-sacrifice of a Victorian melodrama. We do not want that; we want carers to be normal individuals with caring responsibilities. Society owes carers a big thank you for taking on those responsibilities; they should be given as much support as possible. The idea of leisure is another great step forward: if carers cannot work because of their responsibilities, they should be allowed to go out a couple of nights a week to pursue a hobby. If a person is not emotionally stressed, drained and driven into the ground, he or she will probably provide better care for longer. The long-term cost implications are favourable to the Government; everything dictates that they are.
	Clause 3 relates to co-operation between authorities. What more can we say? How many of us have spent hours belabouring the Government because departments do not talk to each other. The Chinese walls set up by command structures, and so on, have stopped so much legislation, without many good intentions coming to anything. From the point of view of the development of legislation generally, but particularly in this field, if we manage to introduce a model that will force departments to work together and to take account of each other's guidance, it could do a huge amount for the efficient running of government and its change. I would welcome the inclusion of such a provision as a standard clause in a lot of legislation; it would be a very good idea.
	I shall try to summarise our attitude to the Bill. It is a good idea; it builds on best practice. It should have happened ages ago—almost a pre-requisite for any social legislation to reach Parliament. I wish it well. I hope that it is enacted quickly and that its good ideas are enacted with all speed.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has a long, distinguished history of looking after the needs and aspirations of disabled people; I salute him for it. More recently, he has turned his attention to those selfless people who look after disabled people. I agree with him and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who have made the point that carers, too, need our support.
	The trouble with being what my children used to call a House of Lords groupie for so many years is that I remember. I remember other noble Lords who were in their day great advocates of the subjects that we debate in this Chamber regularly. On the plus side, I also have the advantage of seeing the gradual progress made by legislation and society on a great range of subjects.
	On carers, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I recall a period before the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, joined us, when the then noble Baroness, Lady Seear, espoused the lamentable treatment—or lack of it—that carers had received over the years. She would strongly approve of this Bill. She, too, had a strong interest in foreign affairs. I am sure that, having heard the admirable maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, Lady Seear clearly has a most able successor. I am sure that we will hear from her both soon and often on her specialist subject. A word of warning, though: it is sometimes a mistake to be tempted to speak too often.
	As the noble Baroness pointed out, we have all been involved with carers, many of us in caring. Certainly, I came across many of them in my 10 years as chairman of the Stroke Association. Over that time I was proud to be involved in an annual award to the carer of the year for a stroke sufferer. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about elderly carers, but I can tell her that often the people to whom we gave awards were young carers, sometimes of school age.
	Although the Bill will do nothing physical for carers, it builds on two previous Acts, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. I confess that I was surprised that the eminently sensible Clause 1 of this Bill was not included in previous legislation. Being of a suspicious frame of mind, I assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the absence of a duty to inform carers of their right to an assessment of their needs was because of the cost to local authorities. This is the first time that I have shared anything, let alone a suspicion, with the Minister's colleague Dr Ladyman.
	That suspicion was unfounded. Carers UK, to which I am most grateful for briefing on the Bill, informed me that discussions were held in connection with the previous Bills but that, being Private Members' Bills, any amendment could have rocked the boat so much that they may never have become law. I am also told that local authorities believe that there is virtually no extra cost to them in the Bill. However, I note Clause 5, which allows the Government to give local authorities extra money, should it be necessary.
	Carers' responsibilities are obvious to everyone; their rights, on the other hand, are not. It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact of life that not all local authorities advise carers fully, hence the need for this Bill. The fact that private carers are estimated to save social services departments up and down the country £57 billion a year, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and other noble Lords, should not escape our notice. As noble Lords will appreciate, the political fallout of having to add that enormous sum to council tax would be gigantic.
	Not only should an assessment of the needs of disabled people be paralleled by an assessment of the needs of the carer, but the needs of the latter should include, by virtue of Clause 2, whether the carer works or wishes to work, or is or wishes to be in education, training or involved in a leisure activity. Replacement carers may be required for those periods when the regular carer pursues those activities. Without a proper assessment, that need would inevitably go unnoticed. I note the Prime Minister's promise in this connection—made during the Big Conversation on, I believe, 22 April this year—that the right to flexible working is to be extended to carers. That is long overdue, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us more news on that and tell us when we might expect a Bill or order on the subject.
	Lastly, I will refer to the need for co-operation between statutory services. There is absolutely no point in doing an assessment just for the sake of ticking a box, which the Government would do well to remember when considering targets. Unless it leads to some positive action where necessary, which it frequently will not, we might just as well tear up the whole Bill. Therefore, I am delighted to see in Clause 3 that other local education authorities, housing authorities and the various health authorities are to be informed when the assessing authority believes it to be necessary.
	I have a long-term aim in this connection. Ever since having had the honour to serve in Northern Ireland, I have believed that the best way to organise health and social services is to have them provided by the same organisation. Both the Government by their recent activities, and this Bill in getting the health service and local authorities to co-operate more closely, are creeping towards my personal ideal. For the avoidance of doubt, my ambition is not official Conservative policy, but then this is a Private Member's Bill, so I can and will speak for myself. That said, I am speaking not only for myself when I say from these Benches that we support the Bill and hope that the Government will assure it a speedy passage.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and other noble Lords in support of this Bill. The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill is a further testament to the cross-party recognition of the crucial role played by carers. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her thoughtful maiden speech. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from her in this House.
	I pay tribute also to the role of Dr Hywel Francis in the other place in bringing this Bill forward, and to the work of UK Carers and other carers' organisations in bringing the Bill to this stage of preparation. Carers continue to be a priority in this Government's agenda and have remained so since 1999, when carers' contributions and concerns were first formally recognised in the National Strategy for Carers. I am pleased to be able to say that not just as a Minister but as, I suppose, one of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley's group of the usual suspects on carers' issues. I am grateful for her kind remarks and the trip down memory lane that she gave me.
	The carers' strategy is unique; it was developed across government with carers and the organisations that represent them. It has led the way on partnership working, and we continue to work with the voluntary sector and other major stakeholders in developing policies to support carers. The work undertaken by my colleague Stephen Ladyman during the Bill's progress through the other place has more than demonstrated the Government's continuing commitment to supporting carers. Their contribution to enabling people to stay in their own homes and remain independent, not only for as long as they wish, but to enjoy that time, is rightly acknowledged in the Bill. However, support for carers must revolve around ensuring that they are also able to make choices as individuals. It is important to ensure that those who wish to care are able to do so with the support they need. It is equally important to make it possible that those who care can combine normal, everyday activities such as work and leisure with caring. We know that caring for others can come at a price in terms of the health and wellbeing of carers, as well as prospects for employment and self-esteem.
	It is critical that we, as a Government, listen and learn from carers' experiences. They provide a reality check for all of us on how our policies are working. Carers are key partners in care—partners with a wealth of knowledge and experience that produces better policies, better legislation and better services. This partnership has been reflected in the Bill. People and organisations from all walks of life support the Bill, but most importantly carers and the organisations that represent them recognise that it has the potential to make a real difference to their lives.
	As a Government, we are confident that the Bill has emerged from the other place in a form that fulfils the fundamental requirements for any new legislation. It fits within the framework of the modernisation of public services, and it complements existing laws. Most importantly, it delivers real and concrete changes for carers without disproportionate burdens on local councils. It makes it clear to councils what they are required to do. Clause 1 introduces new provisions to the existing carers' legislation requiring councils to inform carers that they may be entitled to an assessment. That will ensure that carers are getting information about their rights, as a number of noble Lords have said, in a more consistent way and at an appropriate time.
	Clause 2 creates a specific duty that councils, when carrying out assessments under the existing legislation, must consider the wishes of a carer to work or undertake education, training or leisure activities. That will ensure that the assessment is undertaken in a style that appreciates and explores the needs of carers so that they are able to participate in life beyond their caring duties. By amending existing legislation, no authority should have difficulty understanding what they must do. In terms of carers' assessments, that means taking carers' lives outside caring into full account. This clause will ensure that councils consider and support carers in accessing opportunities to engage in work, education, training and leisure alongside those who are not carers.
	Clause 3 makes provision for consideration of carers in the planning process, as well as providing a specific duty to consider assistance in relation to individual carers. The experience of councils with the Children Act led the supporters of the Bill to believe that this clause was important, and we thoroughly agree with them. It will promote joint working by requiring bodies, including councils and the NHS, to give due consideration to requests for help from a local authority in relation to planning and the provision of services that might assist individual carers to care and to continue to care.
	We consider it vital that local councils are able to engage at a planning level with their partners in health and social care. That means that, at a strategic level, social services will have a lever to influence the priorities of their partners in health and the other council departments. The emphasis on cross-authority co-operation will be reinforced by the supporting carers theme for round 6 of the beacon council scheme, ensuring that the best councils have the opportunity to share their ideas and show how innovative services for carers can be through working across boundaries.
	We have, however, added an additional duty in respect of co-operation. The Government feel that it is important for councils to be able to plan at an individual level. This is not designed to place onerous burdens on other parts of local government or on health bodies, but it gives social services an opportunity to put their case about the benefits offered in individual circumstances. As many noble Lords will know, this case is frequently a compelling one, but can sometimes be seen as a low priority.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked about monitoring implementation. Sustaining carer support will be ensured through the existing system for monitoring councils' performance, the Commission for Social Care Inspection delivery and improvement statement. In March, the Department of Health published a new measure to assess the value and impact on the carer of the support provided at a local level. This indicator will measure the outcome of assessments for carers and will make it clear to councils what their key priorities are. It will also ensure that we know where carers are being well-served and where they are not.
	My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised the issue of the alternative to a direction to the NHS. Taking into account the needs of carers and other stakeholder groups should be intrinsic to any planning process that the NHS undertakes. It should not be a bolt-on driven by directions. Effecting real change is best done through making the NHS performance management system work for us in this area. That is why we are considering how best to do that with our partners in the NHS. Put simply, it should be for the local NHS to demonstrate to their strategic health authorities that they are effectively taking account of the needs of carers in their planning processes. If strategic health authorities are not satisfied that that is the case or if the Department of Health has specific examples of how the process is not working, we will intervene. I can reassure my noble friend about that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about the Prime Minister's suggestion that he wants to consider as a priority extending the right to request flexible working to people caring for sick or elderly relatives. I am glad that the noble Lord is participating in the Government's Big Conversation. Although we are keeping to the commitment, we will not make any changes to the Employment Act 2002 until 2006, because we have made a commitment on that issue. However, we will continue to work out and listen to ideas that come forward. To that end, my colleague Stephen Ladyman has been involved in two round-table meetings hosted by the voluntary sector during Carers' Week on to discuss with carers and employers ways to make it easier for carers to juggle their caring role, while trying to earn a living.
	In conclusion, I can confirm that the Government fully support the Bill. It will achieve the broad objectives envisaged by its sponsor in the other place. As many noble Lords have said, the Bill offers real and tangible benefits for carers, recognising their status as individuals with personal needs, as well as the prospect of more flexible and responsive services, developed through collaboration. I am delighted to add the Government's unreserved support to the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading today and a speedy passage.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I express my warm appreciation to all speakers in this high-class debate. I also express my appreciation to Hywel Francis and his wife, Mair, for initiating the legislation. It was a great achievement.
	There were many speeches, and I do not propose to comment on any individual contribution, except to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, made a fine speech. I could use many words to describe it, but the two that I will go for are "moving" and "impressive". Congratulations.
	It has been heartening to hear all the speeches in the debate, and the House has spoken with a clear voice on a major issue of social policy. The Bill is a landmark in social policy, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill is a Private Member's Bill brought in the other place by my honourable friend Andrew Stunell. I am delighted to follow his example and steer the Bill through your Lordships' House. My work is made easier because the Bill has the support of all-party sponsors, and I look forward to the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting. That there is political consensus is not in dispute, and the reasons are clear. The Bill is enabling only in its powers, but it is an important step in moving towards a number of regulations that support wider sustainable construction goals. More importantly, when the Government transpose the enabling powers of the Bill, it will deliver meaningful environmental benefit through building regulations.
	I shall quote Sir John Harman, chairman of the Environment Agency. He was co-chairman of the Sustainable Buildings Task Group and delivered its report to the Government in May 2004. This is what he said in a letter that I received only two days ago:
	"We were delighted that since our appointment a major step forward was taken with the presentation in Parliament by Andrew Stunell of a Private Member's Bill. Our group strongly endorsed the Bill and look forward to its early enactment and the possibility this offers for amending the building regulations with the sustainability agenda".
	The report by Sir John Harman and Victor Benjamin, the co-chair, pulls no punches. They go to the heart of the problem that we face. It is relevant to the Bill because it give us an opportunity to set standards that others can follow. The report, Better Buildings—Better Lives, says:
	"The built environment is at the heart of our economy. It shapes how we all live our lives. But the manner in which it consumes natural resources means that it is responsible for some of the most serious global and local environmental change. The way we use natural resources for building, and the levels of pollutants emitted in the process of building and in the use of buildings, once occupied, are unsustainable. The construction industry must embrace more sustainable forms of building. This means buildings that meet the needs of society and stimulates the economy, but with higher environmental performance, particularly in terms of energy and water efficiency and waste management".
	The Bill goes some way to the heart of the problems that we all face. The Bill aims to make buildings of all sorts greener and, more importantly, safer. It will do that by strengthening the regulations on new, extended and altered buildings to require the application of sustainability and crime reduction measures as a matter of course. It will bring under regulation schools and public utilities that are currently exempt, together with major repairs and innovation work that are now partially exempt. It will cover services in and around the building, not just the structure itself. But the most effective part of the Bill is an obligation on the Government to report to Parliament on the extent to which sustainability and crime reduction measures have improved the building stock.
	The Bill also has the support of the World Wildlife Fund, sponsors of the One Million Sustainable Homes campaign. That aim is commendable, as such targets will be easier to achieve, if the Bill becomes law. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee recommended similar measures in its eighth report—recommendation 17—last year.
	We should remember that it is not just sustainability that we are after. There must also be measures relating to security. So many of our buildings are blighted by measures that require additional security, and I am delighted, therefore, that the Bill is supported by Secure Design and, most importantly, by the police. I have been advised that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I need not go into the detail of specific clauses, but I would be delighted to share the advice with those taking part in the debate. Suffice it to say that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is confident that the measures in the Bill are justified in the public interest and are proportionate to its policy aims. I shall also arrange for a copy of the advice to be placed in the Library.
	What are the objectives set out in the Bill? First, we aim to allow building regulations to be made to further the protection and enhancement of the environment; to facilitate sustainable development; and to further the prevention and detection of crime. Secondly, we aim to widen the circumstances in which building regulations could apply to buildings erected before such regulations were made for the purposes of the conservation of water; the protection or enhancement of the environment; the facilitation of sustainable development in connection with the demolition of buildings; the recycling of building materials; or the conservation of fuel and power or reduction of emission of smoke, gases, vapours and fumes, where there is a change of occupancy. Thirdly, the Bill will require the Secretary of State to report biennially to Parliament on the progress of sustainability in the building stock.
	All the provisions relating to new powers to make building regulations are enabling powers. The Act will impose no burdens on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations and the public until regulations are made under the powers in the Bill. As regards devolution, the provisions in the Bill will apply only in England and Wales. Building regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Executive and Assembly respectively.
	So why are those objectives necessary? The current purpose for which building regulations may be made under Section 1(1) of the Building Act 1984 do not allow building regulations fully to contribute to the Government's sustainability objectives. It is for that reason that the Bill, and the greater power to use regulations to make requirements for sustainability purposes for existing buildings, would mean that building regulations could make a more significant contribution than is possible at present.
	Even more important is the fact that current purposes for which building resolutions may be made do not allow crime deterrence and reduction and security issues to be addressed. The Bill will allow regulation to do that in the future. We cannot continue to misuse resources that are so scarce. The provisions in the Bill set out an unequivocal statement of our concern about environment and security. They also place an obligation requiring a person who is carrying out building work to sign a certificate on completion of the work. That will encourage such a person to pay greater heed to complying with the building regulations—both those now current and any made under the powers of the Bill.
	Doing nothing is not an option. Voluntary effort, however welcome, has limited impact. There are a number of examples of best practice that show that it is now possible to build houses which have zero carbon emissions. Water rate can be economically used. Energy technologies are at a stage where they can play a major part in supplying domestic energy needs. But those examples are exceptions rather than the rule. All of us are committed to greater conservation of fuel power and water, to better protection of the environment, to well executed sustainable development and to confronting property-related crime.
	Perhaps I may quote what the World Wildlife Fund said:
	"The scale of the task is considerable. If everyone on the planet were to consume natural resources and pollute the environment as we currently do in the UK, we would need three planets to support us".
	I shall conclude by setting out the scope of the Bill. It will give new powers, under the Building Act 1984, to improve the sustainability of buildings, which are currently responsible for around 30 per cent of carbon emissions in the UK—more than the transport sector—and are generally notoriously inefficient. It will give new powers to improve the crime resistance and security of buildings: at present there are no statutory requirements to comply with police advice.
	The Bill will bring sustainability, fire safety and crime reduction under the same umbrella so that measures taken can be integrated and complementary. It will give powers to require that in certain circumstances large-scale repair and renovation work could comply with the same standards of sustainability and crime resistance as equivalent new building work. Currently, it must simply be no worse than the standard before repairs.
	The Bill will bring under the scope of the building regulations certain types of building that are currently exempt, including schools and operational buildings owned by public utilities. It will give powers to require local authorities to create and maintain a register of documents in connection with building regulations. That should not be an onerous burden as those documents are already collected by local authorities. It will aid the Secretary of State in fulfilling a reporting duty to Parliament and will provide transparent information to the public.
	The Bill will provide powers to nominate a prescribed person on site to certify that the entire building work had been completed in accordance with the building regulations. It will also allow for the creation of an appointed person to be responsible on site for separate sections of the work. That should focus the minds of builders on their legal responsibility to adhere to the sustainability aspect of building regulations. It will also clarify the chain of responsibility on building sites so that defects can be rectified early in the construction process. In extreme cases, effective enforcement measures can be taken by local authorities.
	The Bill will place a duty on the Government to report to Parliament biennially on the progress made in making the building stock more sustainable and crime resistant and will improve the accountability for ensuring that building standards are kept. We all have a stake in a healthy society. We should not subscribe to our mistakes of the past. The Bill is designed to ensure that future generations will look back on this Bill as a major contribution to our economic and environmental improvement. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dholakia.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for so carefully describing the provisions of the Bill: perhaps I need to say not a lot about what it includes. This little Bill has the potential of packing quite a punch. It was supported by all parties in the other place. It has emerged from there with some amendments and with still one or two question marks hanging over it.
	During the passage of the recent planning Bill, there was a great deal of discussion about the whole notion of sustainability and its definition. Here we now have further incursion into that matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has outlined, the intention of the Bill is to amend building regulations and to place an onus on those who are building new properties and renovating properties to conform with the enhanced building regulations—which could be brought in as a result of these provisions, particularly under Part 1, so that there are better results from the conservation of heat, fuel and power, the reduction of water requirement and also provisions to build out crime.
	The latter intentions are particularly important. There have been many examples in the past, which many people continue to live with today, of estates, for example, being constructed with walkways and nooks and crannies. They are poorly lit and are threatening environments, which have achieved notoriety more for the fear of those who live in them rather than satisfaction at having a safe and peaceful haven in which to live.
	Recently, there has been a great deal of work done to identify and prevent such insensitive work being carried out again. But with the prospect of vast numbers of new properties and communities being constructed and brought together as a result of the Government's policies, the question of building out crime has become an increasingly important matter.
	The provisions will be easier to implement on new buildings, but potentially could be costly and difficult to justify where properties are being renovated. If the dates do not change again, in the near future we will be considering the Housing Bill, with its proposals for both home condition reports and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.
	One can see here the potential in that legislation for the demand for energy reports to be part of the pack—provisions that may well have been pre-empted if these regulations are implemented in advance. The onus is already placed on new owners to upgrade property to the standards in the Bill. There is also the potential that owners of houses in multiple occupation may be deterred from buying for multiple occupation if the burden on renovations is too great and too expensive.
	We welcome the inclusion of education premises within the building regulations. That is long overdue and, if these provisions are implemented, would be of great benefit. I understand that all the provisions in the Bill will, if the Government intend at any stage to implement them, have to be the subject of consultation and further consideration in Parliament. I hope that consideration will also be given to whether there is a better way of progressing with them. That may be possible through amendments to the Housing Bill, thus, at an early stage, bringing them into primary rather than secondary legislation.
	The Bill was amended in the other place to cover buildings of special historical or architectural interest. From a brief that I received from English Heritage, I understand that in general, because of the way that they were constructed, historic buildings are about 30 per cent more heat efficient than modern buildings. That certainly says something about what our ancestors knew about heat preservation.
	English Heritage welcomes the provisions of the Bill. However, in new Clause 2 I note that buildings situated in areas designated as conservation areas will now also be included. Nearly 80 per cent of the borough in which I live and serve as an elected member would therefore be brought within the compass of the Bill. While it is undoubtedly true that conservation areas play an important part in ensuring that areas of quality are protected, it would be going too far to say that within them, all the buildings are of a standard equivalent to an historic or listed building. They are not. Many encompass a constancy of design or longevity, or are areas of architectural but not particularly historic merit. It may be that further discussion would be useful on what exactly is envisaged by the inclusion of paragraph (b) in Clause 2 1A(2). The original clause concerning buildings of architectural or historic merit was withdrawn in Committee because it was considered to be too wide, and that now in the Bill has replaced it. So I am only putting down a marker that it may still encompass too much.
	I do not anticipate from these Benches that the further stages of the Bill will detain us too long. For once, the other place has provided a reasonably full scrutiny, and most of the matters of substance were raised and changes made where necessary.
	As I said at the outset, I can confirm that the Bill has the support of this party and we wish it well.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing a Bill which would make a further substantial contribution to the Government programme of sustainability in relation to building, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising some very interesting points which I am sure we would all wish to consider. I do not intend to repeat what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his comprehensive and wide-ranging speech, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I speak in some detail as I have to put the Government's view of this important Bill on the record.
	I very much agree that the Bill is an important step in moving towards sustainable construction goals. Sustainable development is an important part of this Government's policy. We must ensure prosperity so that we can deliver the public services we want, the jobs we need, and opportunities for all. But economic growth must contribute to the quality of life rather than degrading it.
	What is sustainable development? A common definition is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In practice, this means setting four objectives at the same time: social progress, which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and, finally, maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
	This Bill addresses each of those objectives. It aims to make homes and workplaces more comfortable and more secure. It aims to raise performance standards for energy efficiency and to reduce carbon and other emissions that contribute to global warming, and it also aims to reduce water consumption. These are significant measures to protect our environment. It aims to foster the more sustainable use of building materials and to achieve those goals in cost-effective ways which avoid placing disproportionate burdens on our economy.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has already explained, the building regulations are a very important tool in delivering goals in a number of related policies. Current regulations made under the powers given in the Building Act 1984 already make a significant contribution towards the achievement of the Government's aims with these policies. This Bill seeks to extend those powers to enable new ways of improving our national energy and carbon emissions performance to make homes secure and to go beyond that to address some of the other aspects of sustainability.
	In supporting the climate change programme and the energy White Paper, the current building regulations have addressed the conservation of fuel and power and the energy efficiency and limits on carbon dioxide emissions that flow from this for about three decades. These provisions are contained in Part L of the regulations and apply whenever certain types of building work are carried out. They apply to buildings and parts of buildings under construction and, to a limited extent, to alteration works in connection with adapting buildings for different use. However, the building regulations do not address many types of building work carried out on the existing stock of buildings, which are lost opportunities for improving energy performance, and they do not address aspects of sustainable occupation and use such as ongoing energy efficiency and water economy. In these areas, this Bill will be a great help.
	As we have heard, most buildings are existing stock. There is also a large stock of non-domestic buildings and while there is a higher proportion of demolition going on, the rate of new construction is also comparatively small. Alterations are presently captured only if they affect the structural stability, fire safety and means of access to the buildings. This Bill widens the scope of regulations that we can make in both these areas. The Bill also widens the scope of regulations that may be made about water.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned the importance of security and crime reduction in her speech. This is a very important part of the Bill. The inclusion of a provision to enable building regulations to be made for the purpose of furthering the prevention or detection of crime is something we very much welcome. The Government are committed to creating sustainable communities that are thriving and inclusive, well-designed places where people want to live and work. But to succeed it is important to ensure that they are also places where people feel safe and where crime and disorder, or the fear of crime, does not undermine the quality of life and community cohesion.
	Security measures that help to reduce not only the opportunity for crime but also help reduce the risk of people becoming victims of crime are important. It is obvious that good basic security is necessary because we want to reduce the number of people who become victims. Households with basic security measures in place such as double or deadlocks on outside doors and locks which need keys to open them on all accessible windows are greatly at less risk of being burgled. Even the very presence of security measures on a property can deter burglars. This Bill will allow regulations to be made to facilitate the prevention and detection of crime, which will enable us to look over time at a whole range of buildings and evaluate whether regulations would be helpful in improving overall security and combating crime.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has explained briefly the provisions of the Bill. However, it may be helpful to indicate to noble Lords how such powers might be used if the Bill were enacted. Many of the clauses are enabling powers and would require regulations to be made to use the powers that they confer. All proposed regulations would be subject to full public consultation and a full regulatory impact assessment to assess the practicality of the proposed measures and their costs and benefits.
	The Building Act 1984 currently allows us to make regulations to deal with the conservation of fuel and power and to prevent the waste and misuse of water. We have already used these powers to make regulations to require buildings and fittings such as boilers and windows to be more energy efficient. This clause gives powers to make building regulations for new purposes. It will allow us to address environmental protection and sustainable development issues, in particular to promote the recycling of building materials and to control greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
	The Bill would also allow us to address crime prevention and security issues through building regulations. This may require that better locks are fitted on doors and windows, and extends to regulations which may be made to include demolition. As a consequence regulations could be made to require the recycling and reuse of building materials. The Government therefore strongly support Clause 1.
	Clause 2 covers,
	"Buildings of special historical or architectural interest".
	This clause requires that special character-protected buildings—listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas—should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making building regulations. The clause recognises current practice in both making and applying regulations. The Government do not intend to consider general exemptions for historic buildings but, where appropriate, the approved documents on the regulations will give guidance on how the requirements should be applied to such buildings. It is widely felt that the present pragmatic approach to applying the regulations by building control bodies in respect of individual buildings works well, and the clause will not disturb these arrangements.
	I should add that the clause will not have the effect of exempting the owners and occupiers of protected buildings from any requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Government can therefore fully support the clause.
	Clause 3, "Contents of building regulations", concerns the matters to which building regulations apply. The first part of the clause adds to the list in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 of matters which regulations may cover in the general purposes section of Section 1. The second part of the clause extends powers to make regulations to deal with existing buildings.
	As a general principle, building regulations are not retrospective—that is, buildings need comply only with the requirements in force at the time they were built or altered. There are currently some exceptions to this: first, when a building or part of it is materially altered; secondly, when there is a material change of use—for example, from a dwelling to a shop or vice-versa; and, thirdly, when certain controlled services, fittings or equipment are replaced.
	The remainder of the clause would add to these exceptions and allow regulations to apply to existing buildings in the following circumstances: where they concern demolition; where they concern the use of recycled materials; where they concern the conservation of fuel and power or the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and on the change of occupancy of all or part of a building.
	As to the requirements to upgrade buildings in relation to conservation or fuel reduction and emissions where other regulated building work is being carried out, the Government consider that these additions are necessary to address fully the issues of the recycling of building materials, the conservation of fuel and power and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
	The clause amends Section 44 of the Building Act 1984 to ensure that substantive changes made in respect of other buildings apply also to Crown buildings. The Government therefore support Clause 3.
	Clause 4, "Continuing requirements of building regulations", allows regulations to be made to impose continuing requirements on the owners and occupiers of buildings where such requirements are needed for the purposes of conserving fuel and power or reducing emissions. The requirements could be imposed for the following purposes: the inspection and testing of the building or its services, fittings or equipment; the implementation of measures in relation to the building or its services; the keeping of appropriate records on these matters; and the making of reports to prescribed authorities on them. The clause also contains a technical amendment to Section 44 to allow the same duties to be imposed on Crown buildings as on other buildings.
	The Government consider that the clause will ensure that buildings are appropriately maintained and improved in respect of conservation of fuel and power and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The clause will allow regulations to be made to help the Government to meet targets in the climate change programme, which I described some moments ago.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, noted, Clause 5 of the Building Act 1984 exempts certain educational establishments and some buildings of statutory undertakers—mainly utilities and buildings of transport undertakings—from compliance with the building regulations. The clause removes these exemptions. The Government support this removal.
	Clause 6—"Secretary of State to report on building stock"—requires the Secretary of State to report biannually to Parliament on progress towards sustainability in the building stock. The Government support these measures. We agree that Parliament and the public should be kept informed of progress in this important area. Moreover, the reports may act as a spur to retain focus on our continuing agenda in this area.
	Clause 7—"Registers of information and documents to be kept by local authorities"—allows regulations to require local authorities to keep a register of information relating to their functions, powers and duties under the Buildings Act 1984 and building regulations. The clause would help better organise the information already held by local authorities. It will not impose an additional burden on local authorities; it will help improve access to information for the public. The Government fully support the clause.
	Clause 8 allows for regulations to require compliance certificates for those carrying out regulated work. These would state that the completed work complies with the building regulations. This will remind builders and main contractors that responsibility for achieving compliance with the technical requirements of the building regulations lies with them; that they cannot shelter behind subcontractors, designers or building control bodies. The Government give the clause their full support.
	Clause 9 allows regulations to require a person to be appointed in prescribed circumstances to manage compliance throughout the course of a building work. It will encourage greater compliance with building regulations. The appointed person will monitor the building work as it is done to ensure that building regulations are considered throughout the project. It will make the job of local authorities and other building control bodies easier by providing a single point of contact on multi-contractor sites.
	I should emphasise that Clauses 8 and 9 are independent of each other. It might be easier for the person signing the certificate under Clause 8 to be the person managing compliance during projects under Clause 9. However, this will be a matter for those carrying out the building work.
	In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that this is an enabling Bill. It will allow us to pass regulations based on its powers at a future date. Before these regulations are introduced, there will of course be a full regulatory impact assessment and consultation process. I agree that the Bill will make a major contribution towards economic and environmental improvements. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government support the Bill. It will enable building regulations to make a significant contribution to the achievement of greater sustainability and security in buildings in England and Wales.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the Minister for their contributions and their support for the Bill. The noble Baroness has a vast knowledge of local government and her views are important in taking the Bill forward.
	She expressed concern about older properties. That is precisely the concern I had. Having received a brief from English Heritage, I made a point of speaking to that body and I was told that, in general, it welcomes the inclusion of Clause 2 as it will have the effect of increasing the circumstances under which building regulations can be made to apply to existing buildings, and it would be helpful to have this policy embedded in primary legislation.
	It would be wrong for me to prolong the debate on a Friday afternoon, but let me put an offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. If it would be at all helpful, I could sit with her, together with the advisers on the Bill, to consider any issues that we may be able to resolve. This would allow us more time at the Committee stage.
	This is a very modest Bill. It is important in relation to sustainability and holding the Government to account.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2004

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the order was approved by the other place on 21 June. If approved today, it will establish an urban development area in the lower Lea Valley and Barking-Havering riverside, and an urban development corporation to regenerate it.
	The Thames Gateway presents a huge opportunity. Its growth potential was recognised more than 10 years ago. The Sustainable Communities Plan sets out our vision for the gateway. We have identified its capacity to accommodate some 200,000 jobs and 120,000 homes by 2016. These are vital to the economic future of London, the south-east and the country as a whole.
	Within the Thames Gateway, east London provides its biggest challenges but also its greatest potential. It is characterised by a wide range of complex land use and land assembly problems that combine to constrain development and economic growth.
	Across the gateway, we are working with partners to put in place appropriate delivery mechanisms. This includes a UDC in Thurrock and a range of bespoke local delivery partnerships and UDCs elsewhere in the gateway. We are firmly of the view that a UDC is the most appropriate delivery vehicle for providing the single-minded focus and clout necessary to get things done in east London.
	The objective of the UDC will be the regeneration of the London Thames Gateway area. It will bring land and buildings into effective use. It will encourage the development of existing and new industry and commerce. It will create an attractive environment. It will ensure that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area.
	The UDC will accelerate the sustained regeneration of some of east London's most challenging areas. It will focus on securing the development of new homes and jobs on brownfield sites in the lower Lea Valley and Barking-Havering riverside. It will enable existing communities to access affordable homes and new job opportunities while also providing homes and jobs for newcomers to east London.
	On 17 November last year, we published a consultation paper on our proposals for the London Thames Gateway UDC. Responses were received from individuals, the voluntary sector, the private sector, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and government agencies. We were pleased at the general support across all sectors for the establishment of a UDC in this key part of London. A particular issue considered as part of the consultation was the boundaries of the UDC, and I should like to deal with this in some detail.
	It is our intention that the operational boundary of the UDC should ensure that it has a strong delivery focus and a clear remit. I must emphasise that decisions on the boundary of the UDC have been made following extensive and intensive consultation, and commissioning independent advice from consultants.
	The order provides for the UDC's operational area to cover the lower Lea Valley and Barking-Havering riverside. The UDC will not have a presence south of the Thames. While our initial proposals for the UDC included Bexley and Greenwich, we have concluded that these areas will be better served by their own bespoke delivery bodies. A number of significant amendments have therefore been made to the proposed UDC boundary following the consultation, and I should like to take a moment to explain them.
	First, concerns were expressed that the initial area proposed for designation was too wide, that the UDC's focus would be diluted and that instead of accelerating development in certain areas, those places would instead wait for the UDC to get round to them. We felt this to be a persuasive argument. It seemed clear that in certain locations, significant progress could be made now, with the support of existing agencies and the ODPM, without the need for intervention from a UDC. That is why we concluded that those areas originally included in the boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley should be supported through their own partnership arrangements, and that the UDC should focus on the areas of the lower Lea Valley and Barking-Havering riverside.
	I am very pleased to report that this approach has been warmly welcomed by those two authorities and good progress has already been made in further developing the delivery mechanisms in Greenwich and Bexley.
	Secondly, strong representations were made to us advocating the inclusion of large residential areas, mostly in council ownership. We carefully considered the consultants' views on this. We felt that we should not incorporate large areas of housing where other agencies already have renewal schemes in hand. To do so would simply add confusion, especially when the UDC would not be directly active in housing renewal.
	Therefore, to prevent diluting the UDC's energies, the UDC boundary has only been widened where to do otherwise would limit its ability to deliver sustainable regeneration.
	Thirdly, we share the concerns expressed by several consultees that the UDC must avoid creating "cliff edges" at the boundary of its area, but must have bridges into those areas beyond the boundary. The UDC will work with relevant housing providers, including the Housing Corporation, registered social landlords and London boroughs to ensure that regeneration activity is integrated with existing communities wherever possible. I shall return to this principle of partnership working in a moment.
	The UDC will be able to support relevant programmes such as access to training, jobs or community space beyond its boundaries to achieve the most effective regeneration of its area. In the past, if regeneration sources did not flow through the UDC to surrounding areas, they did not flow at all. Now we are supporting a much wider programme of regeneration and growth in the Thames Gateway as a whole, of which the UDCs are one part, albeit an extremely important part.
	The important point is that we now have the flexibility to support good strategic projects on the margins of the UDC area as a result of the way in which we have established the programme.
	The role of the UDC's board is to set the strategic vision and to take decisions required to deliver that vision. All the places on the board will be filled on merit, in accordance with guidance from the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	The London boroughs most affected by our proposals will all be represented on the UDC board, and we have invited nominations from the boroughs concerned. The GLA has also been invited to nominate. Other seats will be filled on the basis of open competition.
	UDCs are intended as short-life bodies. It is important that they focus on achievement within a clear timescale rather than regarding themselves as having an open-ended remit. Typical lifespans for previous UDCs have been seven to 10 years. This has given them sufficient time to develop and implement a strategy and delivery plan and to tackle complex land assembly problems. The Thames Gateway UDC will therefore have an indicative lifespan of 10 years, with a full review after five years.
	Having set out the background to and reasoning behind the proposal, I should like to take a moment to emphasise a key principle that underpins it. The UDC will operate in partnership with fellow agencies in the London Gateway. This partnership approach represents a fundamental change in strategy since the days of the London Docklands Development Corporation, when, as noble Lords will know, that was the only regeneration agency in London. Today, the UDC will operate in an environment where specialist agencies are making significant progress and will look to it to be the catalyst for co-ordination by providing the all-important framework to which everyone can work.
	I shall say a few words about local authorities. It is my expectation that through membership at board level and joint working at official level the boroughs and the UDC will handle the statutory planning and programme delivery efficiently and effectively.
	Other key agencies will also be involved. The UDC will forge productive relationships with the London Development Agency, the Greater London Authority, English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, as well as with key local organisations working on behalf of local communities. It is a fundamental point that if the UDC is to succeed it will need to take into account the views and aspirations of existing local communities. In building these relationships it will draw on the expertise and experience of existing agencies and partners to make that process as effective as possible. The need to include local communities will be highlighted in the guidance issued to the UDC by the Government.
	Planning is one of the key powers for the new UDC. Giving UDCs the role of determining planning applications for types of development likely to be most relevant to their purposes will allow them to deliver action quickly and effectively in areas of intended change. Following the establishment of the UDC, it is the Government's intention to place before this House, and the other place, an order to give it the powers to determine large scale and strategic planning applications, with the exception of the Stratford and Olympics area, to which I shall return in a moment. Householder and minor planning applications are expected to stay with the local authority for determination.
	Noble Lords should note that such a transfer of planning powers would not change the nature of those powers, nor would it lessen the transparency of the planning process. The UDC, as a local planning authority, would follow the same or similar procedures as the boroughs. So, for example, where the borough would have consulted, so will the UDC. Where the public have a right of appeal against borough decisions, they will enjoy the same right against the decisions of the UDC. It is not primarily the pace of planning decisions that would be increased by their transfer to the UDC, but the speed with which the area could be regenerated as a result of combining planning powers with the UDC's single-minded focus.
	In relation to the Olympics area and Stratford, I have been most impressed by the commitment shown by all stakeholders to take forward our plans for the exciting Olympics bid for London 2012. The joint planning authorities team is currently considering five planning applications relating to the Olympic Games in the lower Lea Valley. I believe that it would be counter-productive for the UDC to intervene with that process mid-way through. Similarly, the linked planning application for Stratford city is soon to be determined by the London Borough of Newham and the UDC will not expedite matters by intervening at this stage. On that basis, I propose that the UDC does not take planning powers for the areas covered by the Olympics or Stratford applications.
	I have set out our proposals. They have been the subject of extensive consultation and have received widespread support. The London Thames Gateway UDC will make a major contribution to realising the Government's vision for the Thames Gateway as a whole. It will create new and sustainable communities and bring new jobs, new housing and a new future to an area critical to the future of our capital. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order. I am grateful to him for going into some detail. I have here a very large map with lots of colours on it. The yellow bits are now excluded as a result of the order. As I understand it, a very much larger area was originally intended to be covered by the UDC. As the Minister has explained, it now seems to have been reduced because of the need to let smaller regeneration projects go ahead and, as I understand it, because of the amount of residential accommodation already there. That takes at least three pages out of my speech and I am grateful to the Minister for having answered those questions.
	We must not underestimate the importance of what we are being asked to consider today. This is probably the largest development area that has ever been undertaken in this country. We discussed the mechanism for delivery, the urban development corporation, during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and some of its powers have been brought forward.
	The Minister confirmed that there will be representatives from the local authorities on the UDC and explained how the planning processes will work. But I have one or two questions on planning. When we were debating the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill it was agreed that when these big developments take place there will be a statement of community interest. The Minister did not mention that and I want to be sure that a statement of community interest, as well as the economic interest assessment that will be associated with it, are undertaken when the planning is being carried out. They need to be incorporated.
	The Minister also explained that there are a number of partners involved in the UDC. It is not clear from the order exactly how all these authorities are going to work together and what their roles will be. They include English Partnerships, the London Development Agency, and the Port of London Authority, as well as the involvement of the Greater London Authority. There are also major private landowners and the London boroughs. Presumably, each of them will have a representative on the UDC and each will have its own specialist role. The question is whether those specialist roles marry up together or whether each partner will focus on its own particular area of interest and will not be clear about working together. We must be assured that they will work together.
	This is an enormous project. If 200,000 houses are to be developed by 2016, it is a project that will have to take place at a tremendous speed. A matter that I have continually raised, and I am not sure how it is dealt with by the UDC, is how communities are to be developed. It is intended not only to extend existing communities but also to create new ones. Will the UDC be charged with looking at matters such as the provision of educational establishments, shops, local focus, GPs and transport infrastructure? We cannot envisage setting up such a vast development as this without being satisfied that all these elements will be taken into account. I notice that although there is a member from the Greater London Authority on this UDC, Transport for London is not mentioned. If the transport infrastructure is not there—it categorically is not there at the moment—we may all whistle in the wind for none of this will have any effect or be of any use.
	I note the order with interest. It initiates a major redevelopment scheme. We shall all watch it with enormous interest. As I say, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the questions I asked about how the UDC will operate.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches are opposed to the order although I recognise its inevitability. We are opposed to it as we regard it as detracting from democracy and accountability without contributing anything which could not be dealt with through existing mechanisms.
	This afternoon the Minister described the Thames Gateway as a huge opportunity, as have many others. I think that it is right to speak in terms of the glass being half full. We owe it to the people who live in the area now, and to the generations of people who have lived there over many years, to acknowledge that for them the glass has been half empty. People in those areas have been failed by government over a long period. I want to make it clear that we support the regeneration of the Thames Gateway, including the London part of it. In that respect I suspect that the funding decisions, including in particular the 2004 spending review, will be far more relevant than this order.
	I have already participated in responses to the consultation, both through my party's response, which was a combined response on behalf of the Members of Parliament, London Assembly members and the boroughs, and through the Greater London Authority where the London Assembly expressed differences of view from those of the Mayor, Transport for London and the London Development Agency, who support the UDC, by saying that a very large number of conditions needed to be met if the Government were to proceed. Some of those conditions have been met. I welcome the restriction of the UDC area to the north bank of the Thames.
	I note that it has been said both in the other place and here that Greenwich and Bexley which are now excluded, I think, rightly, would be better served by their own bespoke delivery bodies—indeed, they have local authorities. However, I also note that support for those boroughs has come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that the Minister will explain what that means.
	With regard to the boundaries, I welcome the exclusion of the "Olympic" zone, if I can describe it in that way and the other areas of the lower Lea Valley where the London Development Agency owns significant amounts of land. I understand it is proposed that the LDA will work on behalf of the UDC to deliver the LDA's current master plan. The LDA is, of course, undertaking planning of the whole area for its own sake and not just because of the Olympics, but will incorporate Olympics plans as well. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
	Also regarding the boundaries, like the noble Baroness I am concerned about the implications for areas that are not included. We have heard about the cliff edge difficulties and so on. We have also heard that there is—I believe that the Minister, Keith Hill, said this—now flexibility to support good strategic projects on the margins of the area. I am not sure who can support those projects or whether there is a formal obligation on the part of the UDC to have regard to communities at the edge, or just over the edge, of its area.
	There is such a plethora of boards, bodies, partnerships and organisations. I refer to the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, the Thames Gateway Strategic Executive, the Thames Gateway Steering Group, the Thames Gateway London Partnership, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Sustainable Communities Delivery Unit, English Partnerships and, of course, the boroughs, the GLA, the LDA and other quangos. What a potential for overlap and conflict.
	The role of the UDC's board will be, among other things, to set a strategic vision for the UDC and to take the decisions required to deliver that vision. How is that distinct from the roles of the other organisations and why is it required? The Government need to justify the creation of another quango, and particularly a quango that usurps the planning powers of the local authorities. I accept that that does not apply to all the planning powers. The London Plan will stand as the strategic plan. I accept that in terms of development control the Mayor's and Secretary of State's powers will not be affected with regard to refusal or call in. However, it remains relatively unclear to two people—I hope that I may include the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in this—who have been immersed in London politics for a long time just who will be responsible for what.
	Over a long period I have been critical of regional development agencies—at any rate their structure—and, indeed, critical of the London Development Agency, which has taken a very long time to set its own clear objectives and performance indicators against which its performance can be assessed. However, it is leading on regeneration issues. It is focused particularly on the eastern part of London. Regeneration can in short be broken down into inward investment, skills development and economic development. The development agency is doing all those things. As it has powers and, indeed, assets, will the Minister confirm that those existing powers and assets will remain vested in the LDA and will not be transferred to the UDC? Does he envisage any formal agreement between the LDA and the UDC on these areas?
	It is widely agreed that much hangs on access. The noble Baroness referred to that. The UDC should not act as if it were just another transport authority. As regards infrastructure, clearly we are not just talking about housing numbers. You cannot have the extra housing that is proposed without all the other kinds of infrastructure, not just transport, that are required. The GLA has suggested that one of the board members appointed should act as a champion for design, so that we are heading towards creating not simply numbers, but something very special. I am not wholly sure about whether one board member should act as a design champion, because we need champions for the environment and community engagement, and all the board members need to champion all those issues.
	When the London Assembly discussed the consultation paper, a senior Labour Member—senior in both the Assembly and the Labour Party—sent a note to the committee. Without attributing it specifically, although it was in the public arena before, I shall refer to a couple of paragraphs from it. He said:
	"Overall: this proposal will only add to the fragmentation of agencies operating in this area, it would be much better if the government had outlined the relationships between the local authorities, the GLA and the agencies . . . Whilst I do not at all object to working in partnership, in particular with the private sector, the principle of democratic accountability, through elected individuals, should remain a central part of the decision making process for this body".
	I quote that because the Minister in the Commons seemed to think that opposition by the Liberal Democrats was somehow because we were not invited to the party, as we do not have much elected representation in the area. We are working on that, but the view that I am giving is a local government view, not a party-political one in that sense.
	Five of the 13 members of the board will be nominated by local authorities, but we have six local authorities on the ground, working away and no doubt clamouring for extra resources to do better the job that they will all have identified. My view is that they should be given the support that the UDC will have, to enable them—directly elected authorities—to do the job.
	The Minister told the House that the UDC will have focus and clout—those were his words; perhaps they are not technical terms. I would like to think that the local authorities have the focus, and that they may be given the clout. As the noble Baroness so rightly reminded us, we are talking about creating communities. Local authorities expressly have the role of community leadership, and I would prefer to see them setting out to achieve the very admirable objection of regeneration of the area.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses for their contributions on the order. They have raised a number of points that I will do my best to answer. If I miss anything out, I will arrange for letters to be written to them.
	Thames Gateway is a top regeneration priority for the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, it is an extremely ambitious project. It offers both challenges and opportunities and, in London in particular, the challenge is to address the issues that existing communities face every day, as well as to realise the full potential of the untapped assets at our doorstep. We must not underestimate the task, a point that has been made this afternoon. Our existing agencies do an excellent job, but all have a wider regional or national remit and cannot exclusively focus on the London Gateway. The UDC can and will. The UDC will provide the co-ordination and framework to assist those agencies to do what they do best, with the UDC taking on the responsibility for direct intervention when warranted.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked three questions. Her first was, "Will there be a statement of community involvement?". The answer is an emphatic yes. With regard to planning powers, Ministers will ensure that the UDC complies with the relevant local authority's statement of community involvement, which enshrines how it will ensure the involvement of the local community in its exercise of planning powers. That is a very important part of the whole operation.
	Secondly, the noble Baroness asks how the UDC will work with existing agencies. I hope that I have got the message across that, unlike the UDCs of the past, there will be a clear expectation from the start that this one will work with and through existing agencies at local, regional and national level to deliver a comprehensive and sustainable solution for its area. We will make clear from the outset that it will be expected to build effective partnerships spanning both public and private sectors.
	Clearly there is a management job to do to ensure that all of the organisations listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, have methods of working together and that they do not go off in different directions. It is recognised that an enormously important exercise in co-ordination is needed—and that will happen.
	The third question returns to the fact that this is an extraordinarily ambitious project. How will we cope with the aim of building 200,000 homes by 2016? It is not simply a matter of building homes; building a community is a more difficult operation and that is a matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on when she said that the local authority had an important role. We would agree with that. With a project of this size every aspect of it has to be looked at and that is what we plan to do.
	Although the UDC will not be responsible for the direct delivery of transport or local public services, part of its remit for securing the regeneration of the area will be that it is expected to work with those agencies responsible for infrastructure and public service delivery on the identification of local priorities. I would expect those to include Transport for London, primary care trusts, the learning and skills councils and, obviously, the local authority.
	ODPM is funding £446 million worth of projects in the gateway over the current spending period. While many of the projects are directly related to housing delivery, the programme also addresses essential infrastructure and public service issues. As the UDC becomes established it will develop a framework to guide the regeneration of its area and will have a direct call on the resources made available through ODPM's Thames Gateway budget to work with partner agencies to deliver that regeneration. I should reassure your Lordships that, given the nature of this project, we will look at integrating every aspect of community life to ensure that we do not have 200,000 built without a community. That would be ridiculous.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the plight of existing communities. The UDC will ensure that the local community will be at the heart of the project. That commitment was set out in the consultation paper. The UDC will consult on its regeneration framework and corporate plan, which will give local voluntary and community groups the opportunity to contribute to the building blocks of the UDC. The UDC will build on the work already established by local authorities and continue the relationship with the community that already exists. The UDC will operate in a spirit of openness and transparency and will make papers available on their website, as appropriate.
	Why have Greenwich and Bexley been left out and what arrangements have been made for them? Some consultation respondents doubted whether all three parts of the proposed UDC would benefit equally from its operation. There was a particular concern over the areas south of the river—Thamesmead, Belvedere and Erith. Having discusses these issues with the boroughs concerned and the GLA it has been decided that the UDC should concentrate on the two large development opportunities that we have been discussing. Delivery mechanisms will therefore be established to tackle the specific structural and strategic regeneration issues in Greenwich and Bexley. Further discussions will take place with those boroughs and other partners to determine the nature and scope of the organisations required.
	How will we avoid the cliff edges? How will we make sure that we avoid the problems that one could imagine resulting from those boundaries? We are all agreed that there is a need to avoid creating sharp disparities between the UDC's designated area and its margins. All the new UDCs, not just in London, should seek to integrate regeneration activities and new development with existing communities wherever possible. We are aware of this problem.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that it is just another quango. The UDC will kick-start the renewal of the physical and economic fabric in its area. Its singleness of purpose, focused and business-like approach, capacity to deliver the comprehensive range of activities needed for local regeneration and ability to make fast and non-bureaucratic decisions enable it to make a much greater impact in areas with complex land assembly and other constraints.
	Finally, I was asked about land vested in the UDC. How will the UDC operate effectively if we do not vest land in it to start with? I have gone into some detail to explain the principle behind this new generation of urban development corporations which will work closely with public-sector partners to achieve comprehensive regeneration. It is envisaged, therefore, that necessary transfers of land ownership will take place by agreement.
	I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. If I have not, I shall write to noble Lords. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Hamwee, for raising many interesting points, which we are happy to discuss and will take very much to heart. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rights of Re-entry and Forfeiture (Prescribed Sum and Period) (England) Regulations 2004

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the draft Rights of Re-entry and Forfeiture (Prescribed Sum and Period) (England) Regulations 2004 are, subject to the approval of this House and another place, to be made under Section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Section 167 of the 2002 Act gave the power to prescribe that more than a specified minimum sum should remain unpaid before forfeiture will be available unless any part of that sum has been outstanding for more than a specified minimum period. That specified minimum sum could not exceed £500. These regulations prescribe, for the purposes of that section, that the sum should be £350 and the period should be three years.
	It will mean that the use of forfeiture by landlords will be restricted in respect of unpaid sums of ground rent, service charges and administration charges, but only against long leaseholders of dwellings. A long lease is one which was originally granted for more than 21 years.
	Its effect will be that forfeiture will not be available against a long leaseholder owing £350 or less, unless any part of that sum has been outstanding for more than three years. Therefore, if, for example, a ground rent of £50 is owed, a landlord will not be able to take forfeiture proceedings until that sum has been overdue for three years. A landlord can still take civil debt proceedings to recover sums that are caught by this provision and so it does not mean that a long leaseholder simply does not have to pay the sums which are caught by this provision.
	The measure will provide an element of protection to those leaseholders who have bought an interest in a property which will generally be the residue of a lease originally granted for 99 years. Indeed, almost all flats will be bought on this basis.
	Most leases give the landlord a right to forfeit or repossess a lease in the event of a breach of one of its conditions by the leaseholder. Although a court from whom a landlord must seek an order to forfeit will usually grant relief to the leaseholder, this will generally be on the terms that he remedies the breach and meets the landlord's full costs in the proceedings.
	Some landlords misuse the threat of forfeiture in order to extract additional sums from tenants. They do that by demanding extortionate recovery costs in addition to the unpaid sum. Those are often wholly disproportionate to the landlord's costs of, for example, sending out a reminder letter, but they are not sufficiently high that leaseholders are willing to challenge them in court or at a tribunal.
	In such cases, the demand for payment will be accompanied by threats of further costs and, ultimately, proceedings to evict the leaseholder in order to intimidate him into paying. Even though the reasonableness of such charges can now be challenged before a leasehold valuation tribunal, the cost and effort of doing so may be disproportionate to the sum involved.
	The measure attempts to strike a fair balance between protecting leaseholders from oppressive landlords who use threatening and bullying tactics against leaseholders and protecting landlords and leaseholders who are prepared to pay their fair share. We recognise that managers need some way to deal with leaseholders who fail to observe the terms of their leases, but it is widely known that forfeiture can be abused by a minority of landlords.
	During the passage of the Act, we gave assurances to both Houses that the Government would consult widely on the regulations that were to be made under the 2002 Act. A consultation paper was issued in October 2002, seeking views on proposals which would strengthen the protection given to long leaseholders against forfeiture.
	There was wide consultation on the sum and period that we are now proposing to include in these regulations. Those who were consulted included local authorities and housing associations, together with landlords and leaseholder representative groups. There was widespread support among respondents for the proposals.
	This is part of a package of provisions within the 2002 Act which will introduce further restrictions against the use of forfeiture by landlords. If these draft regulations are approved, we intend to make them later this year. We also intend that their coming into force will coincide with the coming into force of other provisions of, and instruments under, the 2002 Act that relate to forfeiture.
	The overall objective of all these provisions is to reduce the scope for landlords to abuse the forfeiture procedures as a means of threatening leaseholders. We need to strike a better balance between allowing the landlord to take action where a lease has been breached and protecting the leaseholder against unwarranted threats of action where the sanction is disproportionate to the offence. Forfeiture should operate as a sanction of last resort against leaseholders who wilfully refuse to pay money to landlords who are lawfully entitled to it. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am interested in the Minister's comments because, as I understand it, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would nod his head, this is the first of a number of regulatory processes which will be coming forward.
	So far as I can tell, these regulations do nothing to protect tenants. Rather, they bring forward a matter that was discussed during the passage of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill 2002—that is, the tendentious problem of whether forfeiture rights should be continued with at all. I know that this matter has been taken very seriously and has obviously been the result of consultation. But, as I read the regulations, they set the base at which a landlord may set forward on the path of forfeiture at £350, which is rather lower than £500. I understand that the number of responses to the consultation process was remarkably small. According to my notes, there were 24 replies, which seems rather few as a basis on which to proceed with this order.
	I have a few short questions for the Minister. First, is it correct that there were only 24 replies to the consultation? Secondly, the Minister rather suggested that the £350 was a concession. I cannot understand how a lower figure of £350 compared to £500 is a concession. It seems rather the other way round. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is a lawyer, will prick up her ears and try to do something about that. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could respond.
	Thirdly, can the Minister explain when the other regulations, which provide protection to tenants from such forfeiture claims, will be introduced? If they are to be put forward as a package it would be helpful to know when they are due to come into force. I see that these regulations are not due to come into being until 2004, so it would be helpful if the Minister could say. Normally we have an indication of when they are likely to come into force, but that is not on the draft statutory instrument.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my questions relate to consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum, which accompanies the draft regulations, refers to the consultation paper which was issued and to which there were 77 responses, but only those where there were two votes are reported in the Explanatory Memorandum. Certainly, the great majority, 24, voted—perhaps that term should be in quotes—for £350.
	There were 38 responses reported in the memorandum, or, if we include the two which expressed preferences for more than £500, which would not be possible given the primary legislation, 40 in all. As I said, there seem to have been 77 responses. So, we know what was said by only around half—40 out of the 77. What this boils down to as a question—I apologise; I forgot to give the Minister notice of this but I am sure that his officials will have anticipated it—is where the other 37 lie in the spectrum. We are asked to make a decision based on responses to a consultation of which we know what was said by only half the people who responded. The table in the memorandum could give a rather skewed picture. The other 37 might have said £499 running down to about £450, or they could all have asked for different sums under £100.
	Similarly, with regard to the period of three years, again, 40 of the 77 were reported. Where in the spectrum are the other 37? In my view, three years seems a rather long time, especially as a debt of rather more than £350 could be involved. Is the Minister able at this point—perhaps not—to amplify the Government's thinking on why three years is right? It may be that a fair response from the Dispatch Box will be that we have to consider the two parts of this, the amount and the period, which together feel about right. It may not be easy to put it in detailed terms, but in general we want to encourage private sector landlords to rent, so in general from these Benches we would support measures that may persuade more private sector landlords to do so without inappropriately threatening tenants.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful yet again for the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Hamwee. Many of their questions centre around the analysis of the results from the consultation process. Rather than deal with a five-page document here, probably it would be best for me to pass on copies of the results.
	We have a table of respondents. That shows we were genuine in our consultation. The majority voted for the sum of £350. One person went for £3,500. It went down the spectrum to £350. I think these matters are probably best dealt with by my passing copies of these results to the noble Baronesses.
	I have no idea at the moment why the prescribed period is three years, but I shall be happy to deal with that later.
	On the question of other orders, there will be a commencement order in November to come into effect three months later, so that will probably be the beginning of January next year. Again, I shall look at Hansard and if questions have been asked that I have not answered, I will be happy to answer them.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has offered, and I am grateful for it, to give the Front Benches more information. As I understand it, these regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I believe that the other House has not yet considered them. Could he ensure that his office passes the information to the Front Benches in the Commons before they have to consider the matter so that the Government are not faced with answering the same questions?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am happy to give that undertaking.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Baroness Hanham: rose to move, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1308), which came into force on 10 May, and to lay before it in its place regulations which require a resolution agreeing to the proposed change by each of the local authorities which abut or contain a Royal Park before the Royal Parks Agency may alter the speed limit in that Royal Park.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, my Motion to revoke statutory instrument 2004/1308 in respect of regulation 2(5) would amend Part 2 of Schedule 2 by substituting words about a 30 miles per hour speed limit coming down to 20 miles.
	The issue here is not the rights or wrongs of 20 miles per hour speed limits generally. In some places, particularly in busy residential areas, these have their merits. But this order highlights a wider and more serious issue about traffic management and public accountability.
	The Minister will be familiar with the background, but perhaps it is worth rehearsing it. The Royal Parks Agency, headed by Mr William Weston, an appointee of the Government, is a quango which is not accountable to anyone, save the Government. A few years ago the Royal Parks Agency announced that it was going to close a number of the gates of Richmond Park to traffic and possibly impose a 20-mile per hour speed limit. No clear reasons were given for that beyond the one given at the time by Mr Weston that, "something must be done".
	There was no evidence of damage by pollution, damage to wildlife, damage to the park, no serious accident record and no dangerous speeding traffic. Indeed, in the consultation police raised concerns about the practicality of a 20 miles per hour limit on such a wide area, its enforceability and the risk of it encouraging overtaking that was not a problem in the park hitherto.
	At no stage has the Royal Parks Agency been able to produce any scientific evidence to justify any of its proposals, which include the reduction of much-used car parking space giving elderly walkers access to the heart of the park. The Royal Parks Agency's proposals were opposed by all neighbouring local authorities, which are of course the elected bodies responsible to local people.
	There was such an outcry—quite unprecedented in south-west London—about proposed closures of access by two gates that the Royal Parks Agency withdrew its plans, which would also have blocked transit across the park by one of the main routes that connect people north of the park with their hospital facilities in Kingston.
	However, the Royal Parks Agency went ahead with the closure of the Robin Hood Gate, the main link from Kingston to the north of the park, not only for commuters but also for the many, including nurses, local authority employees and others who come to work in the area. At no stage has the Royal Parks Agency shown any understanding of the importance of free movement across the park to the economy of the area, or of local people's needs to use links across the park to reach schools, shopping centres, hospitals, dentists, places of work and friends.
	The three neighbouring authorities—Kingston, Wandsworth and Richmond—all oppose the proposed changes. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly received a delegation representing the leaders of the three authorities on the closure of the Robin Hood Gate. I am told that he listened politely, as I would have expected, and agreed to consider any reports on traffic displacement around the park, but so far nothing has happened. Since then, the closure of the Robin Hood Gate has had a totally predictable effect, with Wandsworth experiencing problems on Roehampton Lane, additional queues at Danebury Avenue, and Kingston complaining of additional traffic in residential roads on Kingston Hill.
	Now the Government and the Royal Parks Agency have come forward with a new order to reduce the speed limit to 20 miles an hour. Again, there is no safety justification for that, little or no local support, no authorisation by local authorities and no scientific case behind it. Indeed, self-evidently, slower driving is causing more visual pollution as cars take longer to cross the park and more noise and exhaust pollution as cars engage lower gears. If pollution is the problem, this is not the answer. As the police had forecast, cars are already overtaking more, creating a new hazard that did not exist before: there are lines of slow-moving traffic, and even reports of cyclists overtaking cars in a provocative manner when cars are driven at 20 miles an hour.
	The situation regarding unilateral gate closures and limits is highly unsatisfactory. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that he will not allow the Royal Parks Agency to extend its experiments to any Royal Park without the agreement of the local authorities abutting on or containing that park.
	I do not intend to press the Motion to a vote, but I believe that this unelected agency cannot be permitted to continue to act in disregard of the opinion of local elected authorities. I have chosen this latest order to flag the wider issue before Parliament and with the Minister.
	Power without responsibility seems to describe the Royal Parks Agency's ability to act without considering the objections of local authorities and local people. That power must be used responsibly. I suggest that in the case of not only Richmond Park but also of all the Royal Parks the Royal Parks Agency must heed the views of the local democratically elected authorities before imposing change. If it will not do so voluntarily then, as my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are doing, Parliament must seek ways to bring the agency under local democratic control.
	I hope that the Minister will address the issue openly—I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place—that he will listen and courteously but firmly invite the Royal Parks Agency also to listen to the voice of local authorities and their electorate. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1308), which came into force on 10 May, and to lay before it in its place regulations which require a resolution agreeing to the proposed change by each of the local authorities which abut or contain a Royal Park before the Royal Parks Agency may alter the speed limit in that Royal Park.—(Baroness Hanham.)

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before dealing with the speed limit, to which the noble Baroness referred, perhaps I could mention another part of the order. It is not always easy to read such orders because one must put them into the context of previous regulations. However as I read the legislation, children under 10 will be able to use cycles, roller skates, rollerblades, skateboards and other foot-propelled devices in areas apart from those designated for that purpose by the Secretary of State—for which one must read "the Royal Parks Agency". If I have understood that correctly, I admit to considerable concern about that proposal. I declare an interest as a nearby resident to Richmond Park and as a user of it—not as a skateboarder; the foot-propelled device is my own two feet or my car. I use the park both to enjoy it and because I am one of the many who treat it as part of the local roads network. That is the issue—whether it should be treated as such. Sometimes, indeed often, I combine the two.
	I have asked the Minister to explain the fact that the 20 miles per hour limit already applies in the park. I understand that it has applied since 10 May, which is when this order came into effect. It is understood locally to be experimental, and I understand the arrangement whereby this type of order applies unless and until Parliament knocks it out. It is odd that Parliament might put the Royal Parks in the position of having to remove the considerable signage that is now in place, including a lot of painting on the roads in the parks.
	I asked a number of people locally their views on the 20 miles per hour limit. The general view was that it was a good thing, because it stopped them driving faster. One person said that it prompts him to avoid using the park as a through route because he does not like driving slowly. That is a good thing. We should be prompted not to use the park as a through route as part of the local roads network. Certainly, I have been aware of the fact that traffic has slowed down; it has had to slow down. I have also become aware of the different driving style that one must adopt when one is being overtaken by a cyclist. I am not one of the lycra-clad brigade; I see it from a driver's point of view.
	The Royal Parks, including Richmond Park, have a role that is completely different from that to which we have been referring. They are hugely important assets that London and the nation are lucky enough to have. I would like to put on record the views of the Friends of Richmond Park, who believe that handing the control of speed limits to the local councils would be a retrograde step, given that the council's primary interest is getting local traffic to use Richmond Park rather than local roads; and that the councils are driven, understandably, by local interests, while Richmond Park is a national asset. It is an SSSI, it is a national nature reserve, an area of outstanding national beauty, and it is an applicant for EC special area of conservation status.
	The Friends of Richmond Park say that the interests of drivers should not have the priority that the local councils would afford them, and that the current experimental attempt by the Royal Parks Agency to make what they call minimal 10 miles per hour curtailments to through traffic should be accepted. They think that it is right that Royal Parks lie within the jurisdiction of the Royal Parks Agency under a remit from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to manage them primarily for pedestrians and for environmental protection. Local councils and Transport for London would not give environmental concerns the same priority as the DCMS and the Royal Parks Agency. Finally, they say that we need to reduce wear and tear on the park and that the through motorist has least claim to be in it. They refer to the need to allow children to walk and cycle to school through the park and to all the health issues of which the House is well aware.
	It is undoubtedly the case that, when the park is closed to traffic, the area around the park in rush hour is almost impossible. I suspect that the closure of Robin Hood Gate, which gave access into the park only, not out, is even more of an issue than the speed limit. After all, with the speed limit, one can still get through the park in daylight hours, albeit a little more slowly and with more time to appreciate its huge assets. Twenty miles per hour is a compromise between tensions that are, I suspect, impossible to resolve.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising the issue of Royal Parks. The issue has concerned me for some time. I do not say that I agree with some of the statements about speed limits made by the noble Baronesses who have spoken, but I do not think that that is the point; it is a question of accountability.
	I have had many discussions, asked many questions and received many statements and letters on the Royal Parks—relating more to Green Park and Hyde Park than Bushy Park or Richmond Park. They demonstrate to me that the current management of the Royal Parks does not see itself as having to implement government transport policy or any other policy. Its prime consideration seems to be with putting cars first—the bigger and fatter, the better—pedestrians second and cyclists a poor third. I raised some of the issues in Committee on the Traffic Management Bill a few weeks ago.
	I shall give your Lordships one or two examples. There is, as noble Lords will know, a big party going on in Hyde Park. It involves bringing in gear and equipment, as well as lots of people to put it up along North Carriage Drive. The people doing it have closed the westbound carriageway to all vehicles, including cycles, so that they can park the contractors' cars there. My wife was going up there the other night, and, like all cyclists, she ignored the "No entry" sign. After all, are cyclists really expected to go down Holland Park Road, which is highly dangerous? She got shouted at by two attendants who told her that she could not go down there, because the contractors have to park their cars there and they have priority.
	The same thing happened when Constitution Hill was resurfaced earlier this year. The cycle lane was closed for six weeks and people were told to go on the road, on which the average speed of the cars is about 50 miles per hour. I see a speed camera there once a year. Fifty miles per hour is, to many cyclists, a dangerous speed, and, on such occasions, cyclists certainly do not overtake cars.
	Last winter, when it snowed, they did not salt the cycle lanes—they expect you to ride up Park Lane—but they did salt the road that goes along the north of the Serpentine to a width of about 50 feet. The only people who use it are the police and the people who live in the houses in the middle of Hyde Park, which are, I suspect, grace and favour residences. They do not need a width of 50 feet. I telephoned Mr Weston and asked him to sort out the cycle lane and the footpath, which is heavily used, and was told that he did not have enough staff. To me, that indicates that they are not trying hard. There is a lack of accountability.
	With the Traffic Management Bill, we talked about Transport for London having the ability to manage the traffic on certain routes that are not the responsibility of the Highways Agency—certain designated local authority routes. I tabled an amendment proposing that that should apply to certain designated routes in Royal Parks. One thinks of the Mall, Constitution Hill and, perhaps, Birdcage Walk, not the ones through Richmond Park. The message that I received from the Minister was that TfL could not give instructions to the Government and that the Government run the Royal Parks. Of course, that is true.
	Last week, I tabled an amendment on Report suggesting that the solution, which I checked with a number of parliamentary lawyers, was to transfer, say, within two years, the responsibility for highways and traffic management of the Royal Parks to local authorities. I have been in discussions with Westminster City Council, which would welcome that provided the finance is sorted out, as one would expect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that that was not the case with the local authorities around Richmond Park, but it is one view.
	I have now been told that that amendment is unacceptable: we are working on another one. But the point is that there needs to be a better way for the Royal Parks to fit into what the local community wants and to have some kind of accountability. Whether there should be a takeover of all the Royal Parks by the local authorities or the highways authorities, which we know include footpaths and cycleways, or whether there should be better communication, I am not sure. There has been a duty for the Royal Parks Agency and local authorities to communicate about highways and traffic management for some time, but I am told by TfL and, I think, Westminster City Council that that does not work very well. So that needs strengthening.
	In conclusion, is your Lordships' House and the House of Commons really the place to talk about whether people should be allowed to light a bonfire in a park or should be allowed to take photographs with or without a tripod, or whether children under 9 or 10 years old should be allowed to do this, that or the other? That seems to be wrong. Surely, governments have better things to do. I appreciate that these are wonderful parks which are great assets to the country, but there is something wrong. There is a lack of democratic accountability. I look forward to my noble friend's response. I suspect that we shall pursue some of these issues—together, I hope—during the coming months and years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for giving me such notice as she could of the purport of her Motion. Indeed, it is clear from the wording of the Motion that, primarily, she is referring to speed limits in the Royal Parks, although there are other issues that have been raised.
	It is necessary that I should set out the basis on which the roads in the Royal Parks are governed. The Secretary of State is required under the Crown Lands Act 1581, as amended on many occasions, to manage Royal Parks on behalf of the Crown for the quiet enjoyment of the public. The park roads are an integral part of the parks.
	Although a lot of people think of park roads as being part of the local road networks—in some cases, in fact, they are—they are not actually public highways. Most of them were built to service people who live in, work in and visit the Royal Parks. Most of them are closed at night. Commercial vehicles, with the exception of licensed taxicabs, are not allowed to use them unless they are delivering to people who live or work in the parks.
	Some roads, such as The Mall and Constitution Hill, are ceremonial routes; others, such as Chestnut Avenue in Bushy Park and the Outer Circle and Inner Circle in Regent's Park have been specifically designed as features of the park landscape in their own right.
	In managing the Royal Parks, of course we have to consider them partly as a means of getting from A to B, but they are an integral part of the parks in which they exist. We have to balance the effective movement of traffic with a wide range of other considerations—indeed, statutory responsibilities—which could be quite different from those that are the primary concern of a local highway authority.
	How would a local highway authority, for example, take account of the conservation of a park's integrity and value as parks and as historic landscapes? All the parks are listed landscapes in the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. As a highway authority, how would they take account of the amenity value of the parks, their accessibility for visitors, the quality of the visitor experience or the effect on wildlife and its habitats?
	As regards the particular case mentioned, the order that came in on 10 May reduces the speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour in Richmond Park. That park is a Grade 1 listed landscape, a national nature reserve, a site of special scientific interest and a candidate special area of conservation. Protection and enhancement of wildlife is a priority and there is a statutory duty to further the conservation and enhancement of the features for which the site has been designated.
	I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about this, but it does not mean that we are not committed to consultation. The Secretary of State is already required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to consult local boroughs before carrying out any of her functions in relation to the park roads. Similarly, I should point out that there is a reciprocal obligation on local boroughs to consult the Royal Parks, which is not always the case.
	We have been consulting over traffic in Richmond Park since 1996 when Dame Jennifer Jenkins's review team held a public consultation on the draft of its report on Richmond and Bushy Parks. In 1999 the Royal Parks presented a report to local authorities, the Traffic Director for London and the Highways Agency proposing a range of options to implement Dame Jennifer's recommendations. After further discussion with the boroughs, the agency consulted the public between October 2000 and February 2001.
	The Richmond Park traffic management final report was published on 17 December 2001 and was sent to local boroughs, MPs and Transport for London, and published on the TRP website. In 2002 the agency consulted further on the closure of Robin Hood Gate and, although it did not have to, the proposals contained in the Richmond Park traffic report of December 2001. The results were published in the report, Traffic in Richmond Park: the Way Forward, in February 2003 and, again, made available on the website.
	I have to say, therefore, that the 20 mph speed limit could be said to have passed the test proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It has been the subject of two separate consultation exercises. In 2001, 74 per cent of respondents supported the 20 mph speed limit, with 9 per cent against, while in 2003 the figures were 53 per cent in favour and 37 per cent against.
	Of course we consider the concerns of local people and we will continue to take them into account. But the Royal Parks are national assets and I believe they should continue to be maintained for the nation by central government.
	I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for giving us the views of the Friends of Richmond Park. I hope that the House will allow me to give the views of the Friends of the Royal Parks Forum expressed through Kenneth Stern, chairman of the forum and also chairman of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. That group states in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, dated 22 June with a copy to me and no indication that it should be treated as confidential; indeed, I am sure that it is not intended to be treated as confidential:
	"At the half-yearly meeting of the Forum last September we unanimously requested the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency to start the process of applying a 20 mile an hour limit on roads in all Royal Parks for the greater safety of pedestrians and a more peaceful environment. Some of these roads, including North and South Carriage Drives in Hyde Park and the Outer Circle in Regent's Park, are frequently used as race tracks by drivers. The Chief Executive showed sympathy with the demand while pointing out that it would require considerable consultation"—
	that remark answers itself.
	"We know that the agency is obliged to consult neighbouring authorities in matters which affect them, but apparently Baroness Hanham wants to extend this to give local authorities an absolute veto on Royal Parks proposals. This we find unacceptable. The Royal Parks are well aware of the need to consider the views of local residents, but as an executive agency of a government department, they should not be subject to such a limitation. Furthermore, although the roads in the Royal Parks are generally regarded and used as part of the public road network in London, they are in fact private roads, even such well-known ones as Constitution Hill and The Mall. There is no valid justification for claiming that these roads must have the same speed limit as those under the control of Transport for London or local authorities. Their special environment should be taken into account".

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what the word "private" means in this context?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are not public highways under the Highways Act. It is very straightforward.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley, raised a large number of issues which have nothing to do with the speed limit, the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper. Clearly they will be debated at length when the Traffic Management Bill comes before the House.
	Let me explain three points to my noble friend. The Royal Parks are opening up new routes to cyclists in conjunction with Westminster Council next year; they have opened already a new cycle route through Kensington Gardens; and the works on Constitution Hill were to improve the cycle route. I hope that he will take these improvements into account when he moves his amendment to the Traffic Management Bill.
	As things stand, I believe that we have the right balance of consultation, democracy and accountability. Reducing speeds in Richmond Park and increasing the time it takes through-traffic to cross Richmond Park by four minutes is worth it.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for their interventions. The noble Baroness did not entirely support the line I am taking, and the noble Lord will obviously pursue these matters further.
	It is interesting that the local authorities appear to think that they have not been consulted on this issue, so there must be a question mark against how the consultation was carried out and with whom. I do not live in the area, as the Minister will know, but it was my advice that the consultation on this issue seemed to be extremely limited and that the imposing of the speed limit of 20 miles per hour was carried out well before the order was introduced into the House.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, work did not start on imposing the 20 miles-per-hour speed limit in Richmond Park until 10 May, when the order took effect. I have checked on that matter and those who advise me said that they are shocked at the idea that they should be tempted to do anything illegal.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall accept the Minister's word for that, but it was not the advice I received.
	We have aired the issue sufficiently. As I said earlier, I am not going to put the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at eight minutes past three o'clock.